AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF

L.R. Lovestone for the degree of Master of Arts in History of Science presented on May 19, 2017.

Title: Empathy, Person and Community: the Foundation of the Sciences in the Phenomenology of

Abstract approved:

______Paul E. Kopperman

During the first decades of the twentieth century different attempts were made to unify the diversifying and specializing sciences. One of these attempts manifested as the History of Science. Established in 1913 with the academic journal Isis, its first article written by George Sarton clarified that the field was created to keep connected and synthesize the sciences, which had become highly stratified over the previous century. The primary concern was that scientists would lose the ability to communicate across disciplines, that the many branches would disintegrate into ever-increasing specializations, and that science itself would lose its meaning.1 This thesis looks at another attempt to unify the sciences that emerged at this time in : phenomenology.

Edmund Husserl created phenomenology to provide the unified foundation of the sciences. The phenomenologist who accomplished this was one of his students, Edith Stein. This thesis looks at Stein’s historical context: the intellectual influences and the European cultural crisis that conditioned phenomenology’s first decades. This thesis then examines Stein’s phenomenology and its consequences. My analysis found that as a result of her phenomenological investigation of empathy, Stein asserted the foundation of the sciences is the unfolded person.

1 George Sarton, “L’Histoire de la Science,” Isis 1, no. 1 (1913): 3-46.

©Copyright by L.R. Lovestone May 19, 2017 All Rights Reserved

Empathy, Person and Community: the Foundation of the Sciences in the Phenomenology of Edith Stein

by L.R. Lovestone

A THESIS

submitted to

Oregon State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

Presented on May 19, 2017 Commencement June 2017

Master of Arts thesis of L.R. Lovestone presented on May 19, 2017

APPROVED:

Major Professor, representing History of Science

Director of the School of History, , & Religion

Dean of the Graduate School

I understand that my thesis will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon State University libraries. My signature below authorizes release of my thesis to any reader upon request.

L.R. Lovestone, Author

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to the people who have supported and encouraged me throughout my graduate experience.

• Thank you to Dr. Amy Koehlinger as my connection to the academic world wherein I found my home. You always had my corner in the ring, constantly cheering for me to be me. Thank you for fighting for my voice so that I could fight for myself.

• Thank you to Dr. Barbara Muraca for the serendipitous connection to Edith Stein and our thrilling conversations. Our time together was a wonderfully beautiful beginning of my journey with Stein. Thank you for your consistent celebration of my work and of me.

• Thank you to Dr. Paul Kopperman for your kind counsel and interest in my work. It has been a privilege to work with and learn from you.

• Thank you to the SHPR faculty. I have felt connected to a wonderful community of different people who each played a unique and significant part in my development as a scholar.

• Thank you to my friends and colleagues at OSU. It is such a privilege to know you and work with you.

• My biggest thanks are for my family, especially my sister Crystal and my nephew Giovanni. The parts of my person that have unfolded because of you are more incredible than I could have ever imagined. I you with my life and carry you with me always. This thesis is for you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Introduction...... 1 Chapter One: The Roots of Phenomenology ...... 5 What is Phenomenology? ...... 5 ...... 8 Maurice Merleau-Ponty ...... 9 ...... 10 Edith Stein...... 12 The Hermeneutic Tradition...... 14 Friedrich Schleiermacher...... 14 ...... 15 Empirical ...... 17 ...... 18 Edith Stein...... 20 Chapter Two: The Context of Crisis in Science & Society ...... 24 The Crisis of European Science and Edmund Husserl ...... 25 The Effect of Immanuel Kant & Neo-Kantianisms ...... 26 Edmund Husserl...... 29 The Epoché ...... 30 The Crisis of European Society & Worldly Phenomenology...... 38 The Concept of Crisis ...... 39 & the Concept of Person...... 42 The Impact of Crisis on Edith Stein...... 44 Chapter Three: Steinian Empathy...... 51 Defining Empathy...... 51 Stein’s Method...... 52 Theodore Lipps ...... 54 Max Scheler ...... 58 The “Living Body” (Leib)...... 61

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued.)

Page

The Zero-Point of Orientation (Nullpunkt)...... 62 Husserlian Empathy...... 64 Steinian Empathy...... 67 Chapter Four: Key Concepts: Person, Community, Lifepower, and Values...... 71 Person as the Topmost Layer in the Structure of Human Beings...... 73 Person as Partly the Soul (Seele) ...... 75 Person as Partly the Core (Kern) ...... 77 Community ...... 80 Lifepower (Lebenskraft) ...... 90 Values ...... 95 Chapter Five: Enfaltung...... 103 Awakening ...... 105 The Possibility of Never Unfolding...... 107 The Possibility of Thwarted Unfolding ...... 112 The Possibility of Unfolding...... 117 Conclusion ...... 124 Steinian Phenomenology as an Approach to the Study of Religion & Trauma ..126 “Ich bin auf der Welt zu allein und doch nicht allein genug,” by R.M. Rilke.....127 Bibliography ...... 129

Lovestone 1

I want to unfold. Let no place in me hold itself closed, for where I am closed, I am false. - R.M. Rilke

Introduction This thesis examines the phenomenology of Edith Stein and how her phenomenology provides a unified foundation for the sciences. Edith Stein was an early twentieth century German phenomenologist whose significant contribution to the many fields of the humanities has yet to be fully appreciated.2 Stein was born into a Jewish family in Breslau on October 12, 1891. She began her academic career with a major in psychology at the University of Breslau in 1911. Two years later she transferred to the University of Göttingen to work with Edmund Husserl and to study phenomenology. She earned her Ph.D. in philosophy in 1916 and self-published her doctoral dissertation: On the Problem of Empathy. After graduating, Stein worked as her professor’s assistant for almost two years. She then worked to obtain a faculty position at several German universities for which she wrote her habilitation thesis, published in 1922 as Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities. Stein’s dissertation and her habilitation thesis are the focus of this thesis. Unable to obtain a faculty position, Stein traveled as a guest lecturer and taught at several Catholic schools. Stein had converted to Catholicism in 1922, taking the habit and entering a Carmelite convent in Cologne-Lindenthal eleven years later when Adolf Hitler rose to power and anti-Semite laws ended her teaching career.3 Stein continued her work in phenomenology thereafter wedded with theology as part of her Carmelite life.

2 Hanna-Barbara Gerl-Falkovitz, “Edith Stein’s Little-Known Side: Social Philosophy out of the Spirit of Phenomenology.” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 83, no. 4 (2009): 555. 3 Mary Catherine Baseheart, Person in the World: Introduction to the Philosophy of Edith Stein. (Dordrecht: Springer, 2010), 15.

Lovestone 2

Eventually the that ended her teaching career ended her life. Stein was murdered in a gas chamber at Auschwitz on August 9, 1942. In 1998 Pope John Paul II canonized her as St. Benedicta.4 This thesis focuses on Stein’s first two published works in phenomenology. Stein’s phenomenology is difficult to grasp, as is phenomenology itself as both a subject of historical inquiry and a philosophical-scientific method. Largely this is because the orientation of the phenomenological approach and the contours of the conversation are different than conventional writing. When I first read the works of different phenomenologists—Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Max Scheler, and Edith Stein—I was constantly frustrated in attempts to understand. However, the ways in which these thinkers explained experience and the type of questions they asked were deeply interesting and beautiful to me. So even though understaning was hard-won it was also richly rewarding. Of the phenomenologists I read, Edith Stein stood out against the others as exceptional, and, consequently, exceptionally hard. What my experience has taught me about how best to understand Stein’s first two publications informs the structure of this thesis. Because Stein’s significance and what she is communicating in these texts is not immediately obvious, this thesis does not begin with explications of her texts. What may makes Stein seem inaccessible largely has to do with how phenomenology is not a very well known form of scholarship in the , whereas for Stein phenomenology was the center of her intellectual world. In conversations with my junior and senior colleagues, I sense that phenomenology is seen as unpopular, highly esoteric and thus off-putting. Therefore, chapter one starts by speaking to this confused estrangement from phenomenology by presenting my impressions of the general understanding of phenomenology in contemporary scholarship. Chapter one then shifts to phenomenology’s historical context and looks at the intellectual traditions that influenced phenomenology’s beginnings at the turn of the twentieth century in Germany: hermeneutics and empirical psychology. This chapter highlights how from hermeneutics phenomenology took up the task of establishing an

4 Michael Gubser, The Far Reaches: Phenomenology, , and Social Renewal in Central Europe (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2014) 117.

Lovestone 3

interpretive method specific to the humanities.5 Likewise, from phenomenology’s roots in empirical psychology, phenomenology manifested as a social science. Chapter two is also a historical chapter and examines the context of crisis that conditioned the first decades of phenomenology in terms of its cultural milieu. Two perspectives are put forth—how phenomenology functioned as an answer to the crisis in the sciences and how phenomenology functioned as an answer to the crisis in European society. Phenomenology was taken up as the task of solving these crises, not only by providing a unified foundation for the sciences but in its function as a new form of a realism that could bring about a new society and new possibilities for knowing societies. Additionally, as a Jewish-born woman writing in the period of the world wars under the shadow of phenomenology’s founder, Edith Stein’s phenomenological contribution in the face of incredible external obstacles casts her as one of the greatest innovators of the twentieth century. In this chapter I call attention to how, even as her person and her work has suffered violent oppressions due to her sex and race, she accomplished the goal of phenomenology and found the foundation of the sciences, and outstripped her predecessors and contemporaries in significance. Chapter three focuses in on the phenomenological conversation of Stein’s time and turns to the topic of empathy. The concept of empathy had become a topic of philosophical inquiry in the generation before Stein. I present some of her predecessor’s perspectives along with how Stein addressed them. As well, Stein’s notion of empathy is compared to her professor’s, Edmund Husserl, to carefully distinguish the two thinkers. Chapter three shows how Stein and Husserl solved the central phenomenological task of finding the foundation of science in radically different ways. The final two chapters are dedicated to an explication of Stein’s text. Chapter four focuses on key concepts in Stein’s phenomenology. Stein’s phenomenological investigation of empathy led her to a deeper investigation of what constitutes the structure of human beings and how people develop as unique entities. The focus of my fourth chapter is explaining the different physical and relational concepts that Stein identifies are operational in the development of each person as who they are at their

5 Throughout this thesis I will use the terms ‘the humanities’ and ‘the human sciences’ interchangeably and the terms ‘natural sciences’ and physical sciences’ interchangeably.

Lovestone 4

depths, their core: Person, Community, Lifepower, and Values. What I see as most significant in Stein’s phenomenology is the way she shows how interpersonal relationships are important in development, which is the focus of chapter five. Chapter five looks at three different trajectories of personal development: the possibility of never unfolding, the possibility that unfolding is thwarted, and how unfolding is a possibility. This chapter then looks at how it is that a person’s developmental possibilities are what grounds the possibilities of scientific knowledge. In my study, I found that the significance of Stein for the humanities, both in her time and ours, is her argument that the foundation of science is the unfolded person. At points throughout this thesis I will draw on my own lived experiences to explain Stein’s phenomenology. This is not incidental. In her phenomenology, Stein drew on her own experiences to explain abstract phenomenological concepts. Like Stein, my own experiences ground abstract conclusions in concrete human experience. In so doing, I not only meet my subject in her own terms (an important aim of history), but I engage with phenomenology itself.

Lovestone 5

Chapter One The Roots of Phenomenology

This chapter offers a general understanding of phenomenology and looks at the intellectual traditions that influenced phenomenology’s beginnings: hermeneutics and empirical psychology.6 By Stein’s time, the hermeneutic tradition was concerned with establishing an interpretive method specific to the humanities distinguished from the natural sciences, and the key figures of this concern are Friedrich Schleiermacher and Wilhelm Dilthey. For psychology, Franz Brentano was the who provided the starting point for separating psychology from philosophy as a united, scientific-empirical discipline. The generation of psychologists after Brentano produced the first fundamental theories of psychology, such as behaviorism and psychoanalysis, which were just taking shape by Stein’s time. In looking at the ways in which hermeneutics and empirical psychology converged into phenomenology, the significance of Stein’s contribution can also be seen as a significant contribution to these two traditions. The next chapter will fill out Stein’s historical context by examining phenomenology’s beginnings as embedded in a society in crisis. These first two chapters together provide an orientation to the larger intellectual and social issues in science and society that Stein’s phenomenology was shaped by and helped to shape.

What is Phenomenology? It is not possible to provide an adequate definition of phenomenology as a method or an intellectual movement in history. Definitional difficulties have been most obvious to me in conversations with my colleagues where I am often met with skepticism when it comes to phenomenology. These moments have helped me to see that one of the factors that scholars are suspicious about is phenomenology’s seemingly unproductive essentialism. The suspicion is that phenomenology has nothing to do with reality because of the perceived tendency towards high levels of abstraction that seems too exclusionary,

6 These are the two main historical intellectual traditions that Marianne Sawicki identifies as influential to the beginnings of phenomenology in Body, Text, and Science: The Literacy of Investigative Practices and the Phenomenology of Edith Stein (Boston: Kluwer, 1997).

Lovestone 6

too elitist. My impression in these conversations is my colleagues are concerned that phenomenology is not useful to disciplines that value sociological interpretations. In other words, phenomenology is not useful for the study of societies. One scholar, Michael Gubser, also finds this true of historians:

…historians today would find it strange to call phenomenology a social philosophy. In its Husserlian Urform, the school has long been discounted as esoteric or solipsistic, the last gasp of a Cartesian dream to base knowledge on the lonely rational . Intellectual histories often cite Husserl’s methodological influence on such as existentialism and without considering his school’s social or ethical imprint. Even phenomenologists sometimes cast their tradition outside the usual realms of social thought.7 Thus, the suspicions I have encountered match the larger picture of how phenomenology is perceived by different disciplines in the humanities. In these conversations and hear my colleague’s critiques of phenomenology, I come to realize that largely their complaints describe the problems with the phenomenology of one phenomenologist in particular: Edmund Husserl, especially his epoché. An explanation of the epoché will be provided in chapter two. However, as Gubser points out, and my own understanding of Edith Stein’s phenomenology provides, these suspicions can be addressed by calling attention to the diversity of phenomenologists and bringing other, lesser-known phenomenologies to the conversation that are sociological and anthropological. As I indicate in my conclusion, I see Stein’s phenomenology as able to provide for a robust and ethnography for the study of religion and trauma, which is not possible with Husserlian phenomenology.

Another definitional difficulty that makes phenomenology liable to suspicion is one that historian Herbert Spiegelberg identifies: the varieties of phenomenologies exceed any shared, common features among them.8 Over time, with each thinker who used and developed phenomenology, phenomenology’s meaning and applications

7 Michael Gubser, The Far Reaches: Phenomenology, Ethics, and Social Renewal in Central Europe (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2014), 1. 8 Herbert Spiegelberg and Karl Schuhmann. The Phenomenological Movement: A Historical Introduction, 3rd Revised and Enlarged Edition (Boston: M. Nijhoff, 1982) xxviii.

Lovestone 7

drastically changed. Spiegelberg explains: “Even after it [phenomenology] had established itself as a movement conscious of its own identity, it kept reinterpreting its own meaning to an extent that makes it impossible to rely on a standard definition for the purpose of historical inclusion or exclusion.”9 Thus, even if one self-identified phenomenologist offers a definition of phenomenology, his or her definition cannot be taken as representative of the movement as a whole. In other words, phenomenology cannot be defined as one particular methodology. Thus, good understandings of phenomenology are necessarily ones that are grounded in reference to a particular phenomenologist in the context of his or her historical-intellectual context. What I have come to understand is that phenomenologists have a ‘common point of departure,’10 which is an interest in studying experience as it is lived from the point of view of the subject. This point of departure as such lends itself to indefinite and unpredictable developments of phenomenology that become highly idiosyncratic. Even from a shared point of departure, different phenomenologists may end up in profound disagreement with one another. This is evident in chapter three regarding the key differences between Edmund Husserl and Edith Stein. Another, better-known example of contested claims over defining phenomenology is how Martin Heidegger, another one of Husserl’s students, explicitly rejected Husserlian phenomenology and crafted his own phenomenology as an existentialism (much to the chagrin of Husserl).11 All in all, it could be said that there are as many phenomenologies as there are phenomenologists. A good way to get at a general grasp of phenomenology is to understand particular historical-intellectual contexts as phenomenologies developed differently in different places, such as in Germany and France. Geographic distinctions emerge by looking at the different characteristics of concern and different articulations of phenomenology’s history. For example, French phenomenology recognizes Georg

9 Spiegelberg, The Phenomenological Movement, 1. 10 Ibid., 2. 11 Michael Wheeler, “Martin Heidegger,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta (Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab at Stanford University, Winter 2016), accessed April 5, 2017, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/heidegger/.

Lovestone 8

Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel as the initiator of phenomenology proper.12 From a German standpoint this is a misattribution, because German phenomenologists mark the beginning of phenomenology with Husserl’s publication of Logical Investigations in 1900. Looking at historical context helps to reveal definitive ‘German’ characteristics that arise due to the conditions of cultural crisis in the sciences and society, which is explored further in chapter two. This content of crisis constituted a common horizon for German phenomenologists during the first decades of the twentieth century. French phenomenology was shaped by a different horizon, one where science was not an explicitly central concern. In order to further address general understandings of phenomenology in contemporaneous scholarship, I have identified three well-known phenomenologists who, in my experience, tend to be taken as chief representatives of phenomenology as a singular entity or school of thought: Edmund Husserl, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and Martin Heidegger.

Edmund Husserl. Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) is often taken as the defining representative of phenomenology primarily because he is its founder with the 1900/1901 two-volume work Logical Investigations.13 However, even if Husserl is taken to be the defining figure of phenomenology, a coherent definition or understanding of phenomenology is not possible based on the corpus of his works. Another definitional difficulty for phenomenology has to do with the lack of consistency in the thought of its originator. Partly the shifts in his thought have to do how Husserl valued science and saw himself primarily as a mathematician-scientist.14 Even though Husserl is not typically cast in this light, seeing Husserl as a scientist, who did phenomenology as a science, helps to understand how the major shifts in his work were the result of his scientific

12 Spiegelberg, The Phenomenological Movement, 13. 13 Robert Sokolowski, Introduction to Phenomenology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 2. 14 Sawicki, Body, Text, and Science, 49; Alasdair MacIntyre, Edith Stein: A Philosophical Prologue 1913-1922 (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006), 23.

Lovestone 9

orientation.15 In other words, Husserl’s philosophical writings can be seen as more akin to experiments rather than philosophical monographs.16 Husserl conceived of phenomenology as a science, and this characterization seems key to German phenomenology as a whole. The concern for science was most clearly stated in his 1910 essay, “Philosophy as a Rigorous Science.” Phenomenology’s relationship to science manifested as the goal of providing a unified and solid foundation for the sciences, both the humanities and physical sciences. For Husserl, this foundation was at the same time the assertion of philosophy as a science. The problem of how Husserlian phenomenology was a science and simultaneously the foundation of science resulted in the contradiction Husserl struggled with for most of his career, which is further explored in chapter three. Yet phenomenology is much more than Husserl’s contribution.17 Therefore, phenomenology cannot be defined as a whole just by looking at the work and world of Husserl. This is especially the case when looking at the French tradition of phenomenology, which differs significantly in terms of its goals and fundamental view of what phenomenology is in the first place.

Merleau-Ponty. For many scholars the basis for defining phenomenology is taken from a French phenomenologist: Maurice Jean Jacques Merleau-Ponty (1908- 1961). Merleau-Ponty explicitly defines phenomenology in his introduction to The Phenomenology of Perception:

15 A concise biography of the developmental shifts in Husserl’s thought is as follows: In his pre-phenomenology period Husserl attempted to interpret mathematics with a descriptive psychology regarding the mental acts of mathematical thinking—an application of descriptive psychology that he learned from Brentano. His failure in accomplishing this led him to establish a program of pure independent from psychology with Logical Investigations (the publication that marked the beginning of phenomenology). His emphasis was on the subjective and objective aspects of experience and how they are essentially correlated. After this, Husserl developed a “pure” phenomenology by putting more emphasis on the subjective source of all objectivities and conceived of a subjective at a higher, transcendental level, which he set out in Ideas I & Ideas II. See Spiegelberg, The Phenomenological Movement, 70. 16 Sokolowski in personal conversation with Elisabeth Ströker in Sokolowski, Introduction to Phenomenology, 212. 17 Spiegelberg, The Phenomenological Movement, 69.

Lovestone 10

Phenomenology is the study of essences; and according to it, all problems amount to finding definitions of essences: the essence of perception, or the essence of , for example. But phenomenology is also a philosophy which puts essences back into existence, and does not expect to arrive at an understanding of man and the world from any starting point other than that of their ‘facticity’… phenomenology can be practiced and identified as a manner or style of thinking...”18

Merleau-Ponty developed phenomenology as a ‘way of thinking’ primarily by analyzing the intersection of embodiment and perception.19 Merleau-Ponty drew from the work of the previous generation of German intellectuals, but, as Spiegelberg argues, the majority of French phenomenologists, including Merleau-Ponty, poorly understood the originating German phase of the phenomenological movement.20 And while Merleau- Ponty’s definition is reminiscent of Husserl, whom Merleau-Ponty closely studied, one of the ways that Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology is very different from Husserl’s is that Merleau-Ponty lacks a central concern for science. Merleau-Ponty is also not concerned with establishing a unified foundation for the sciences or qualifying his phenomenology as a ‘scientific’ method. In these ways, Merleau-Ponty represents a key divergence from science, which was so important to German phenomenologists.

Martin Heidegger. Another key example of how phenomenology is more than the thought of its founder is to look at the way phenomenology was developed by one of Husserl’s most famous students, Martin Heidegger. Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) was made famous with his 1927 publication , which was dedicated to Husserl. In Being and Time, Heidegger defines phenomenology primarily as a method: “The expression ‘phenomenology’ signifies primarily a methodological conception. This expression does not characterize the what of the objects of philosophical research as

18 Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenology of Perception, trans. Colin Smith (New York: , 2002), vii, 134. 19 Ted Toadvine, “Maurice Merleau-Ponty,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta (Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab at Stanford University, 2016), accessed April 3, 2017, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/merleau- ponty/. 20 Spiegelberg, The Phenomenological Movement, xxix.

Lovestone 11

subject-matter, but rather the how of that research.”21 Heidegger qualifies the goal of this method is “…to let that which shows itself be seen from itself in the very way in which it shows itself from itself. This is the formal meaning of that branch of research which calls itself ‘phenomenology.’”22 Combined with the particular ontological slant that Heidegger asserts in terms of subject matter: “With regard to its subject-matter, phenomenology is the science of the Being of entities—,”23 Heidegger’s phenomenology is thought to have developed into existentialism.24 That is, Heideggerian phenomenology is an investigation of how beings show themselves as such, and he presupposes that beings have agency in determining development. This qualifies Heideggerian phenomenology primarily as a form of existentialism and not phenomenology per se. As well, Heidegger is often perceived in light of his support of Nazism, and thus a flat interpretation of Heidegger as representational of phenomenology is the argument that phenomenology somehow led to Nazism or strengthened Nazi ideology.25 Because Heidegger is arguably one of the most famous phenomenologists, the association that Heidegger had with Nazism becomes at the same time a close association between phenomenology and Nazism and the suspicion that phenomenology is unsuitable for an ethical approach to understanding society.26 As this thesis unpacks the sociological orientation and social context of Steinian empathy, my hope is that suspicions of phenomenology as a form of Nazism will be overturned.

21 Martin Heidegger, Being and Time, trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson (Oxford: Blackwell, 1962), 49. 22 Ibid., 55. 23 Ibid., 61. I do not make many references to Martin Heidegger in this thesis because understanding Heidegger is not necessary for understanding Stein. There are articles that explicitly compare these two thinkers, particularly in the sense that Stein offers important critiques of Heidegger’s thought. Please see: James Orr, “Being and Timelessness: Edith Stein’s Critique of Heideggerian Temporality,” Modern Theology 30, no. 1 (January 2014): 114-131; Rafał Kazimierz Wilk, “On Human Being: A Dispute between Edith Stein and Martin Heidegger,” Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture 10, no. 4 (Fall 2007): 104-119; 24 Wheeler, “Martin Heidegger.” 25 Gubser, The Far Reaches, 3. 26 Ibid..

Lovestone 12

Edith Stein. Stein stuck closely to the conception of phenomenology and its particular method of investigation that Husserl established in Ideas.27 The details of Husserl’s phenomenological method, referred to as the ‘reduction’ or ‘epoché,’ will be discussed in the next chapter. The foundation that she finds as a result of the phenomenological investigation of empathy is that the unfolded person is the ultimate basis of knowledge of self, others, and science. Additionally, the unfolding of a person is dependant on how they engage in relationships and the quality of the relationships engaged. In other words, knowledge is rooted in how each person develops as a unique and irreplaceable entity. One way of defining Stein’s phenomenology, then, is to say that it is an experiential and relational approach to knowledge. As well, Stein offers a framework for thinking about what it means to create knowledge as relational beings. It could be argued that Stein’s work is also primarily existential or ontological like Heidegger because of her focus on personhood. However, her eventual turn to the metaphysics of being is a result of her phenomenological work on empathy; ontology is not her starting place. Moreover, viewing her work primarily as ontology would close off appreciating the full scope of her contributions. As well, unlike Heidegger, Stein did not depart from Husserl’s earlier iteration of a phenomenological method, even though she disagreed with Husserl’s ultimate claims about the foundation of the sciences.28 Stein in particular followed the phenomenology as Husserl established it in the beginning of his career, and she saw her work as an application of his phenomenological method with an explicit Husserlian goal: “The goal of phenomenology is to clarify and thereby to find the ultimate basis of all knowledge,”29 and “Phenomenology urges that reflecting investigation of this scientific consciousness make clear the method of cultural science as

27 Edith Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, trans. M.C. Baseheart and M. Sawicki (Washington, DC: ICS Publications, 2000), 5. What is referred to here in a simplified way as Husserl’s Ideas has been published as different titles—see Marianne Sawicki’s footnote that lists the publications of this work’s various titles and volume organizations. 28 Waltraut Stein, “Preface to the Third Edition,” in Edith Stein, On the Problem of Empathy, trans. Waltraut Stein, 3rd edition (Washington, DC: ICS Publications, 1988), xiii. 29 Stein, Empathy, 3.

Lovestone 13

well as that of natural science.”30 Like Husserl, Stein’s first works in phenomenology are concerned with finding the foundation of both the cultural and natural sciences. Unlike Heidegger, she is not directly addressing or evaluating the agency of expression or thinking about how beings “show themselves.” Unlike Heidegger, Stein can be understood as a fulfillment of Husserlian phenomenology in that she was the one that successfully provided the ultimate foundation for cultural and natural sciences.31 It is one of the key goals in the later chapters of this thesis to understand the different aspects of how Stein accomplished this goal. Because was developed out of a concern for the sciences, a good way to explain phenomenology is how phenomenological knowledge functions as a companion and compliment to science:

Cognitive and brain science may tell us what the brain and neurons are doing, but one does not experience the brain carrying out its commands, firing neurons, releasing chemicals, managing its own electric systems, etc. I experience myself engaging the other, and it is this experience that Stein, like phenomenology itself, focuses on, for it is pregnant with sense, or meaning (Sinn).32 Thus, German phenomenology in particular is seen as offering descriptive context for the empirical sciences, and phenomenology provides what leaves out: experience. Unlike traditional empiricism, phenomenology allows scholars to take subjective experience seriously. Phenomenology asserts that the subjective is vital to presenting a full understanding of empirical claims. Beyond placing phenomenology in contemporary scholarship, understanding phenomenology also needs to take account of the intellectual traditions that informed phenomenology’s beginnings. This requires a longer, historical look at the hermeneutic tradition and empirical psychology in terms of its key thinkers and characteristics.

30 Stein, Empathy, 95. 31 Throughout this thesis I use different terms synonymously to refer to the natural sciences and the cultural sciences, such as the physical sciences and the humanities. 32 Antonio Calcagno, Lived Experience from the Inside Out: Social and Political Philosophy in Edith Stein (Pittsburgh: Duquesne, 2014), 43-44.

Lovestone 14

The Hermeneutic Tradition The hermeneutic tradition is a branch of knowledge and practice that deals with methods of interpreting text, and the hermeneutic tradition has a long history rooted in medieval scholarship.33 By the twentieth century interpretive practices were incorporating forms of communication beyond texts. The ways that Schleiermacher and Dilthey shaped the hermeneutic tradition informed key concepts that Stein adopted into her phenomenology and further developed. In particular, from the hermeneutic tradition Stein adopted the concern with how we interpret people’s experiences and the concern with distinguishing two types of knowledge respective to the humanities and the natural sciences.34

Friedrich Schleiermacher. Friedrich Daniel Erst Schleiermacher (1768- 1834) was from the same geographic area as Edith Stein: Breslau.35 Schleiermacher is regarded primarily as a philosopher of religion, and he was also a classicist and a theologian. Schleiermacher developed hermeneutics as an “art of understanding,” an interpretive method that was creative and open to how words have different meanings in different historical contexts. His hermeneutics strove to interpret text according to the author’s viewpoint that the reader needed to experience directly order to achieve the best interpretation. Stein scholar Marianne Sawicki explains, “Schleiermacher regarded

33 Tina Botts, “Legal Hermeneutics,” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed April 23, 2017, http://www.iep.utm.edu/leg-herm/#H1. 34 These two thinkers are taken as representational in a simplified way for the purpose of giving a summary of one aspect of Stein’s historical context. This is not to say that these were the only thinkers that communicated these key aspects of the hermeneutic tradition for Stein. As well, it should be noted that Stein does not directly cite Schleiermacher in either of her first two publications, but she engages Dilthey directly. 35 Schleiermacher had many intellectual influences and contributed to many different intellectual traditions that will not be mentioned in this thesis. The interested reader is directed to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry that I draw on for this brief summary: Michael Forster, “Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward n. Zalta (Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab at Stanford University, Summer 2015), accessed March 11, 2017, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/schleiermacher/.

Lovestone 15

understanding as the reversal of composition, and he held that the reader re-experiences the mental processes of the writer.”36 In order to accomplish the re-experiencing of the author’s mind, Schleiermacher brought together the tools from the psychology and history of his time, which were also the two academic fields that Stein had experience in before she entered the world of phenomenology as a doctorate student. Schleiermacher also asserted that each human mind is unique according to the specific causal chains that influenced the author’s development, and he argued that the exact sequence of these causal chains could not be reproduced. In light of the fact that it was impossible to replicate the specific development that caused an author’s mind to think in a unique way, Schleiermacher then asserted an interpretive concept that was not causal, what Schleiermacher called “divination.”37 For Schleiermacher, divination is defined as an ‘intuitive displacement of the author,’ where the reader, in effect, occupies the author’s mental viewpoint to interpret the text.38 As will become evident chapter three onward, Stein also emphasized the uniqueness of each individual human being’s perspective on the world, and she also identified a non-causal concept for the human sciences in what she referred to as “lifepower.”

Wilhelm Dilthey. Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911) began his study of philosophy in Berlin, Germany, about twenty years after Schleiermacher. Dilthey is often seen as a continuation of Schleiermacher, since Dilthey explicitly referred to his hermeneutics as the development of Schleiermacher’s thought into a ‘life philosophy.’39 Dilthey is best known in the history of philosophy for the way that he distinguished two types of knowledge respective to the natural sciences and the humanities.40 He primarily focused on developing a distinct approach for the humanities

36 Sawicki, Body, Text, and Science, 5. 37 Ibid., 2. 38 Ibid., 5. 39 Ibid., 6. 40 This is not an exhaustive account of the significance and historical context of Wilhelm Dilthey. The interested reader is directed to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry that I draw on for this brief summary: Rudolf Makkreel, “Wilhelm Dilthey,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta (Stanford: Metaphysics

Lovestone 16

that could be distinguished from the natural sciences: “The ambition of Dilthey’s long career, only partly accomplished, was to establish a common epistemological foundation for all the human sciences, Geisteswissenschaften. These would be sciences of understanding, not sciences of explanation like the natural sciences.”41 As an extension of Schleiermacher, for Dilthey the science of studying culture, or humanities, necessitated more than accessing the mental world of an author but required Nacherleben—to directly live out for oneself another’s experiences in order to understand them:

Dilthey brought the term Erlebnis into the German academic vocabulary. An Erlebnis is a unit of living experience whose content includes its very occurrence. The Geisteswissenschaften study subject matters that have to do with the living-through of occurrences to which we have a kind of internal access that is never brought into play in the world of the natural sciences.42 Thus understanding is achieved through imitation. Moreover, for Dilthey the ability to then interpret another’s experiences that one has lived out for oneself requires understanding the self as a key part of understanding the experiences of others. Self- understanding is also key to Stein’s notion of the role of empathy in cultural studies: “What Dilthey and Stein share… is the conviction that in order to understand the cultural sciences, one must understand what the self, the human person, is.”43 For Dilthey, as is the case with Schliermacher, this emphasis on self-knowledge inherently endorsed an individualizing of historical subjects. This individualism is also central in Stein’s work , according to Stein scholar Marianne Sawicki: “In addition, Stein appropriated the so- called methodological individualism of Dilthey’s Ideen (1894). Dilthey regarded the human individual as the entry point for historical investigation, and biography as the basic historical science.”44 In other words, the individual is the starting place of knowledge. As will be shown in the later chapters of this thesis, the importance of

Research Lab at Stanford University, Fall 2016), accessed March 11, 2017, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/dilthey/. 41 Sawicki, Body, Text, and Science, 6. 42 Ibid. 43 Calcagno, Lived Experience, 94. 44 Sawicki, Body, Text, and Science, 8-9.

Lovestone 17

individualism for science is emphasize as a key part of Stein’s unified foundation of the sciences. Dilthey’s distinction between the natural and human sciences was a non- dichotomous view, where once the scope and structural categories for each are clarified then it is possible to draw on one form of knowledge for the other. Similar to Dilthey, Stein more clearly defined this distinction between the humanities and the natural sciences for the sake of clarity and interdependency between them, not to create a humanities orientation that is inherently oppositional to the natural sciences. Stein’s notion of empathy and her establishment of the foundation of the sciences yields a holistic system of interpretation and therefore can be seen as a culmination of the hermeneutic tradition.45

Empirical Psychology Unlike the hermeneutic tradition that had a long history before the twentieth century, psychology as of Stein’s time was still in its initial formative period. As Sawicki pointes out: “In 1911 Freud was working with patients in Vienna, and the very young B.F. Skinner was trying to train chipmunks: so, psychoanalysis, behaviorism, and the other foundational theories of psychology and psychiatry were just taking shape.”46 A key characteristic of the early formative period of psychology was how it sought to distinguish itself as a distinct scientific discipline. To make psychology an ‘exact science’ meant applying the quantitative methods of the natural sciences, methods that were applicable only to external data. This raised significant problems for psychology because its objects of study were not necessarily external, such as consciousness and emotions. How to adapt the methods of the physical sciences to psychology raised many conflicting viewpoints and confusing questions about the proper object of psychology. 47 The thinker that is credited with first achieving a way to qualify the proper object of psychological

45 Marianne Sawicki, “Personal Connections: The Phenomenology of Edith Stein,” Yearbook of the Irish Philosophical Society (Maynooth: Irish Philosophcial Society: 2004): 152. 46 Ibid.,148. 47 Mary Catherine Baseheart, Person in the World: Introduction to the Philosophy of Edith Stein (Dordrecht: Springer, 2010), 41.

Lovestone 18

investigation and who first establish an empirical, scientific approach for psychology was Franz Brentano.48

Franz Brentano. Franz Clemens Brentano (1838-1917) was a German philosopher of psychology and is acknowledged as the first articulator of how psychology could be practiced as an empirical, professional science in Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint (1874). Brentano’s chief aim was to formulate a new psychology that would be the foundation for a scientific philosophy.49 What is also typically highlighted about Brentano is his significance as a teacher while at the University of Vienna from 1873- 1895. Based on the trajectories of his students it can be argued that Brentano is the starting point of both the phenomenological and analytic philosophy traditions, which are today oftentimes viewed as polarized philosophical systems.50 Brentano is considered a forerunner of phenomenology chiefly because his connection with his student, Edmund Husserl. But it should be noted that Brentano did not associate with the phenomenological movement as he observed it developing in Husserl’s career, and Brentano only used the term ‘phenomenology’ itself in a few documented lectures.51 Brentano’s chief complaint with the psychology of his time was that there were many diverse psychologies that asserted too many conflicting notions of its fundamental concepts. In other words, the basic fundamental principles of psychology were ambiguous. Spiegelberg argues that Brentano strove to make “psychology truly scientific

48 David Bell points out that Brentano’s Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint (1874) is mostly philosophical in character because it was published as the first in a larger project (Brentano died before completing the whole project). Brentano made references in this work to later books that would have made a more straightforward contribution to empirical psychology rather than philosophy of psychology, but those were never written. See David Bell, Husserl (New York: Routledge, 1990), 5. 49 Spiegelberg, The Phenomenological Movement, 31. 50 This thesis does not have the room to fully expound on this argument, and doing so would detract from focus on Stein. For a more detailed discussion of Brentano that I have partly drawn on here as well as a summary of his influence on his students, please see Brentano’s entry in Stanford Encyclopedia: Wolfgang Huemer, “Franz Brentano,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta (Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab at Stanford University, Fall 2016), accessed March 11, 2017, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/brentano/. 51 Spiegelberg, The Phenomenological Movement, 27.

Lovestone 19

and replace the many rivaling psychologies of his day with one psychology.”52 As well, psychology lacked a coherent foundation and framework of its own to approach the contents specific to psychology, such as consciousness and emotions. Rather, the psychology of his time took interpretive practices from physics and physiology that dealt with physical matter that translated poorly to the investigation of psychological content, which is non-material. As Spiegelberg asserts, “For his [Brentano’s psychology] is no longer a psychology based on, and waiting for, physics and physiology, but a pure psychology based on independent sources.”53 For Brentano, the contents of consciousness are the proper object of psychology. And in order to assert the contents of consciousness as ‘objective’ in order to qualify psychology as an empirical science, the particular mental referent structure that Brentano asserted was “intentionality.” From Brentano, Husserl appropriated the term ‘intentionality’ as a key concept in phenomenology. As Michael Gubser notes, “Perhaps no term is more basic to phenomenology than intentionality (Intentionalität), the founding concept revived by Brentano from medieval Scholastic sources.”54 Yet it is important to note that intentionality has a different significance for Brentano’s psychology that is different than phenomenological intentionality. For Brentano, the concept was treated as a noun, and in phenomenology, intentionality is a concept of action, a verb. Intentionality is better phrased in Brentano’s philosophy as intentional inexistence, which means that the immaterial perception of an object contained the materiality of the object itself in the perception.55 Brentanian intentionality as a way of asserting the connection between form and matter, where an object’s physical matter is retained in its perceptual form, is rooted in the philosophy of St. . The significance of intentionality, or intentional inexistence, for Brentano was that it was the way to classify mental phenomena.56 As well, it was the realist

52 Spiegelberg, The Phenomenological Movement, 32. 53 Ibid., 45. 54 Gubser, The Far Reaches, 15 55 Tim Crane and Jonathan Wolff, eds., “Introduction,” in Franz Brentano, Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint (1874), trans. by Antos C. Rancurello, D.B. Terrell, and Linda L. McAlister, ed. Oskar Kraus (New York: Routledge, 2009), xvi-xvii. 56 Ibid. (footnote), 67.

Lovestone 20

implications of Brentano’s classification system that was significant for the start of phenomenology. As Gubser argues:

In a single stroke, the doctrine [intentionality] did away with both the singular ego and subjective relativism by insisting that consciousness was essentially bound to real objects. Intentionality in turn became the cornerstone of Husserl’s new phenomenology, working in two directions simultaneously: elevating human consciousness as the privileged venue of experience and assuring the reality of the objective world indicated in mental acts.57 The concept of intentional inexistence that later developed into phenomenological intentionality was a big shift towards a new form of realism (the belief in direct access to a real external world in contrast to solipsism). This turn is what was so significant about the foundational text of phenomenology: The Logical Investigations (1900-1901). The realism of Husserl’s Logical Investigations took from Brentano the importance of how human experience grounded epistemology. As Gubser explains:

He [Brentano] did not rely on pre-experiential things in themselves to anchor claims epistemologically, for nothing could be guaranteed outside experience. And he denied the possibility of stepping outside the subject- object relationship to validate truth claims, of achieving a transcendental vantage point exempt from worldly engagement.58 Thus, Brentano’s philosophy was a turn away from the idealistic philosophy of his time and made possible a new form of realism that manifested as phenomenology.

Edith Stein. Similar to Brentano, Stein was critical of the lack of a coherent foundation of psychology of her time, 59 and it was the chief why she left psychology and went into phenomenology: It had been a mistake from the start even to think of getting a doctorate in psychology. All my study of psychology had persuaded me that this science was still in its infancy; it still lacked clear basic concepts; furthermore, there was no one who could establish such an essential foundation.60

57 Gubser, The Far Reaches, 15 58 Ibid., 38. 59 Calcagno, Lived Experience, 24. 60 Edith Stein, Life in a Jewish Family: Her Unfinished Autobiographical Account, trans. Josephine Koeppel (Washington DC: ICS Publications, 1986), 222.

Lovestone 21

Stein gave up on doing a dissertation on child psychology with William Stern, famous for the inventor of the Intelligence Quotient (IQ), at Breslau University in favor of clarifying the foundations of psychology instead.61 She would go on to establish that foundation about ten years later. In reading her first two publications, a deep love for psychology is evident in her work. Perhaps psychology was so important to Stein because it was her starting place. Moreover, the first university lecture Stein attended at Breslau University was William Stern’s Introduction to Psychology in 1911.62 Especially in her first two works of phenomenology, Stein focused on the relationship between body and soul and positioned herself with respect to the science of empirical psychology of her time.63 Additionally, understanding Stein’s second publication, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, requires a familiarity with the debates of the time over the significance of psychology as a science.64 However, Stein had deep complaints about the way that the psychology of her time viewed human subjects. Stein argued that psychology was reductionistic of the human person as a subject. As Calcagno explains, “…she regarded the experimental psychological approach as reducing that which is uniquely human and proper to the life of human spirit and history to mechanistic, natural causality; the spontaneity and creativity of spirit cannot be accounted for exclusively in natural, mechanistic terms.”65 As well, Stein emphasized the distinction between understanding and explanation from the hermeneutic tradition to critique the ways that psychology disvalued the experiential:

61 Baseheart, Person in the World, 5. 62 Stein, Life in a Jewish Family, 185; William Stern (1871-1938), a German psychologist and philosopher, is best remembered as the inventor of the intelligence quotient (I.Q.) in psychology. For an understanding of how he is currently remembered in psychology today as well as his contributions to the development of child psychology please see Eugene M. DeRobertis, "William Stern: Forerunner of Human Science Child Developmental Thought," Journal Of Phenomenological Psychology 42, no. 2 (September 2011): 157-173. 63 Angela Ales Bello, “The Study of Soul between Psychology and Phenomenology at Edith Stein,” Cultura: International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and 8 (2007), 90. 64 Ibid., 91. 65 Calcagno, Lived Experience, 23.

Lovestone 22

“This ‘mere’ indicates psychology’s tendency to look at explanation as an explaining away, so that the explained phenomenon becomes a ‘subjective creation’ without ‘objective meaning.’ We cannot accept this interpretation.”66 Beyond psychology, Stein argued that current methods in the humanities, particularly in history, misappropriated of the methods of natural science. For Stein, the concept of causality in particular was not an appropriate for the humanities. To support her objection of causal approaches to the humanities, Stein looks at the history of the natural sciences. She points out that just as was the case in natural theology, the use of an inappropriate method results in severe limitations and distortions of a particular science:

Earlier, people made unreasonable demands of natural science. It was to make natural occurrences ‘intelligible’ (perhaps to prove that nature was a creation of the spirit of God). As long as natural science made no objections to this, it could not develop properly. Today there is the opposite danger. Elucidating causally is not enough, but people set up causal elucidation absolutely as the scientific ideal. This would be harmless if this interpretation were confined to natural scientists. One could calmly allow the satisfaction of looking down on ‘unscientific’ (because not ‘exact’) cultural science, if the enthusiasm for this method had not gripped the cultural scientists themselves. People do not want to be inexact and so cultural sciences have gone along in many ways and have lost sight of their own goals.67 Thus, Stein, like Brentano, raised objections to uncritically adopting methods from the natural sciences for the humanities, especially psychology. This is because Stein rejected methods that could not address the contextual complexities of social life, and certainly was unhelpful in coming to terms with the dynamics of her own society in the midst of crisis. Phenomenology in the context of crisis was a way to address the ethical issues of the time. The crisis of the time was thought to have been a result the detachment from reality and debasement of morality that came about as a result of the rift between empirical sciences and philosophy—the way in which the physical sciences and the humanities of the time brought about polarizing views on the world. As Gubser notes, Brentano first laid down the key ethical components of phenomenology: “If psychology

66 Stein, Empathy, 45. 67 Ibid., 94-95.

Lovestone 23

was Brentano’s first philosophy, ethical insight counted as its greatest promise, and he eagerly anticipated the moral rejuvenation of a modern society beset by skepticism and irrationalism--a hope he passed on to later phenomenologists.”68 For Stein as well as Husserl, the phenomenological goal of an ultimate foundation for the sciences was at the same time the goal of solving the crisis in phenomenologists faced in their time. It is to the context of crisis in science and society that we now turn.

68 Gubser, The Far Reaches, 29.

Lovestone 24

Chapter Two The Context of Crisis in Science & Society

The primary aim of this thesis is to explain how Stein accomplished Husserl’s goal of providing a unified foundation for the sciences. The importance of establishing a unified foundation was to resolve the crisis in science and society of the time. Therefore, this chapter examines that crisis and how it manifested as two iterations: one as the crisis in science and the other as the crisis in society. By the beginning of the twentieth century, there was a growing rift between the humanities (especially philosophy) and the physical sciences. Husserl was deeply concerned with the consequences of this rift: providing a secure, unified foundation for the sciences was to reverse this rift and resolve the ways in which a break had occurred between different ways of viewing the world and human experience that had profound social consequences. Different ways of viewing the world had become polarized, and oppositional framing of methodological orientations respective to the humanities and the physical sciences were thought to have been the main reason as to why the World Wars were possible in the first place. Science left behind larger ‘human questions’ as the province of its opposite—the humanities—and asserted definitive limitations on the use of Reason as the main tool of science. In particular, Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason established reason as the ‘organ’ of science and defined the limitations of its use.69 One aspect of the hugely influential The Critique of Pure Reason was that it began this separatist debate about science. In response, Husserl produced a new kind of realism against the dominance of Kantian thought in his time. Yet Husserl’s phenomenology was more than a new form of philosophical realism; it was a new form of science, and this is evident in the scientific method Husserl endorsed as the phenomenological reduction and later the epoché. It is this method that primarily qualifies exactly how Husserl defined his phenomenology as a rigorous science, a science that promised to bridge the gap between the humanities and physical sciences.

69 Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason (1787), trans. Norman Kemp Smith, unabridged edition (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1965), 33.

Lovestone 25

After the section that discusses Husserl and the crisis of science, this chapter then turns to the crisis of European society and worldly phenomenology. The worldly phenomenologists are the group that continued a realist and sociological phenomenology after Husserl transformed phenomenology into a transcendental idealism with the epoché. In the face of the loss of old Europe, a realist phenomenology aimed for the creation of a new society that could address the concerns of the time to develop a better society. This chapter ends by highlighting the forms of violence against Stein in this context of crisis. There were forms of violent oppression that conditioned her life and writings, and, as I argue, these forms of violent oppression continue to condition the treatment of her work in contemporary scholarship. An account of both iterations of crisis in science and society during the first part of the twentieth century in Europe gives insight as why phenomenology is fundamentally concerned with unification and synthesis, holism and connection. In the face of forms of power that seemed indifferent to social life, such as mass industrialized war and fascisms, it sought a way to make society anew.

The Crisis of European Science and Edmund Husserl Leading up to and during the first decades of the twentieth century there were thinkers who viewed the war as resulting from deeper, systemic problems in European society. There was a particular emphasis on the role of science as the central contributing factor in the weakening and breakdown of society at the time, why the war happened, and why existing governing structures fell apart and were replaced by experimental forms of government. Sometimes these critiques were framed as critiques of language, such as looking at how the polarized meanings of ‘objective’ versus ‘subjective’ privileged certain ways of knowing that effected divisive ways of valuing. Beyond phenomenology, scientists from many different specialties sought to replace mechanical philosophy and de-privilege causality with synthesizing and holistic methods and theories.70 Thus, for many scientists the context of crisis was a call to reform science.

70 Jon Agar, Science in the Twentieth Century and Beyond (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2012), 118-141.

Lovestone 26

For phenomenology, the reform of science meant reforming the way that the empirical sciences valued the subjective. As Gubser explains: This human emptiness, he [Husserl] believed, took centuries to manifest, though it was inherent even at the Greek inception of philosophy. But a crucial watershed came with the Galilean Renaissance, when natural disseminated a universal mathematics that disparaged subjective experience as mere opinion, unworthy of scientific concern. The fateful loss of an original actuality became especially acute in the nineteenth century, when the cult of positive fact reached its apex and industrial advance lost connection with deeper human urges.71 Husserl saw the project of phenomenology as reasserting the value of the subjective for science as a way to reconstruct a hollow humanity.72 This would be possible by reconnecting empirical science with immediate, lived experience—in other words, by reconnecting the objective and the subjective realms of knowledge. Even though in his 1911 The Crisis of European Science Husserl traced the crisis in science back to Galileo, Husserl’s intellectual milieu was occupied with Neo- Kantianism. Husserl’s engagement with Kant was key for his thought, because, like Husserl, Kant’s project in the Critique of Pure Reason was also to save the image of science, although Kant went about a solution quite differently than the early Husserl. By Husserl’s time, Kant had continued to dominate the world of philosophy and a grasp of Kant’s contribution to science had still not been fully established over and against the contribution of David Hume. Husserl was one of the first to depart from the this dominant discourse and assert his own solution to the crisis of European Science with the Logical Investigations (1900/1901).

The Effect of Immanuel Kant & Neo-Kantianisms. The impact of Immanuel Kant in philosophy is well known and has been a prolific area of philosophical

71 Michael, Gubser. The Far Reaches: Phenomenology, Ethics, and Social Renewal in Central Europe (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2014), 57. 72 Herbert Spiegelberg and Karl Schuhmann, The Phenomenological Movement: A Historical Introduction, (1960) 3rd revised and enlarged edition (The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1982), 79.

Lovestone 27

inquiry.73 What is a bit overshadowed or lost in the common perception of Kant today for non-philosophers and scientists is that Kant was dedicated to “saving science” in light of Scottish philosopher David Hume’s critique.74 Hume, simply put, reduced the validity of science and its central concept of cause to being only a product of human associationist or habitual thinking.75 As Alasdair MacIntyre argues: “In the Neo-Kantian view, indeed in Kant’s own view, it had been Hume who, by his account of the nature and deliverances of sense-experience, had confronted Kant with the central problem to which Kant’s epistemology purported to offer a solution.”76 The awareness of Hume’s effect on science was widely known in academic philosophy. Stein herself gives us a glimpse into the way in which the wider intellectual world during Husserl’s time was still struggling with Hume’s critique: “The concept of cause today has not yet recovered from the blow that Hume’s devastating critique dealt to it…”77 Even though Kant’s contribution cannot be easily distilled or summarized due to its sophistication and length, the way Kant deals with Hume can be generalized as follows. Kant addresses Hume’s critique by reversing the scientific orientation.78 Instead of science being essentially an associationist and habitual construct out of information received from the external world, Kant asserted that the human mind was structured in such a way that it imposed coherence onto objects and onto the external world. In other

73 The use of the term phenomenology in natural science and philosophy (though not phenomenological) can be traced back to starting with Kant. Kant used the term “phenomenonology” in The Metaphysical Grounds of Natural Science (1786) referring to one of the four branches of science dealing with matter. See Spiegelberg, The Phenomenological Movement, 7. In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant used the term “phenomenon” to distinguish physical objects from what constituted perception of objects. See Spiegelberg, The Phenomenological Movement, 11. 74 See Daniel N. Robinson, How is Nature Possible? Kant’s Project in the First Critique (New York: Continuum, 2012). 75 That Kant wrote his critique in order to “save” science is based on my reading of Kant’s “Preface to the Second Edition” in Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason (1787), translated by Norman Kemp Smith, unabridged edition (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1965), 17-38. 76 Alasdair MacIntyre, Edith Stein: A Philosophical Prologue 1913-1922 (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006), 27. 77 Edith Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, translated by M.C. Baseheart and M. Sawicki (Washington, DC: ICS Publications, 2000), 3. 78 Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason, 21-25.

Lovestone 28

words, the scientist was not a passive receiver but an imposing agent where the possibility of perceiving the external world was based on the structure of the mind that is particular to all humans. Because the structure of perception of objects in the world is universally the same for all humans, science is universal and, thus, truly scientific.79 However, the dynamics of Kant’s contribution for science are, unfortunately, not that simple, which is evident in how various diverging and competing neo-Kantianisms emerged by the twentieth century that asserted competing claims over whether or not Kant was successful, or could be made successful, in the endeavor of saving science from Hume’s critique. The debates of Neo-Kantianism dominated and confused the world of philosophy that Husserl worked in. 80 As MacIntyre notes:

It became the case that for anyone embarking upon a career in academic philosophy in the major German universities an inescapable first step was: coming to terms with Kant. Kant’s texts had to be assimilated and interpreted and Kant’s problematic made one’s own. Yet very soon the result of this Neo-Kantian consensus was the generation of increasing disagreement, both about how Kant’s texts were to be interpreted and about which elements in Kant’s philosophy were to be endorsed and developed and which were to be radically revised or rejected. And these disagreements had proved—at least so far—not to be resolvable within the Kantian framework…So in the early years of the twentieth century, Neo- Kantianism dominated the philosophy departments of large numbers of German universities, but what was taken to be of permanent value in Kant’s thought as contrasted with what was taken to be problematic or simply in error varied a great deal from university to university. And which view of Kant any particular younger philosopher took seemed more and more to depend on where he had studied and with whom.”81

And it was not until Husserl’s time that alternatives were made possible that could challenge the dominance of the Neo-Kantianisms. The two alternatives that became available were positivism and phenomenology: “And it was indeed only when genuine alternatives had been provided that Neo-Kantianism became open to questioning at a

79 This explanation of Immanuel Kant’s significance for science is based on my own reading of the Critique of Pure Reason. 80 MacIntyre, Edith Stein, 33-35. 81 Ibid., 22, 37.

Lovestone 29

fundamental level. One of those alternatives was the Neopositivisim that Mach’s followers in Vienna defended. Another was Husserl’s phenomenology.”82

Edmund Husserl. A large part of what was so attractive to many about Husserl’s phenomenology as it was set out in the 1900/1901 Logical Investigations was that it opened up new and exciting ways of producing knowledge alternative to the Neo- Kantianisms that were perceived to have gone sterile in recent decades.83 Husserl rejected Kant’s central assertion in the Critique of Pure Reason of the thing-in-itself, or noumena, which claims that we do not directly access objects as they actually are in the world.84 Rather, human beings access things in the world through the automatic structuring of time and space. Instead, Husserl argued that the structuring that makes perception of the world possible for humans is not a structure of the mind but is a structure of external reality. As MacIntyre notes:

For it is Husserl’s central claim [in Logical Investigations] that the invariant, universal and necessary features of the objects and states of affairs that we apprehend in experience, the features that Kant had ascribed to the a priori structures of the mind, are themselves realities as independent of our as are the objects whose features they are. The a priori is not mind-dependent.85

By asserting that the structuring of what makes the perception of the world possible is external, this opened up the possibility that the world of meaning-making, such as lived experience and values, could be an object of scientific inquiry. In other words, Husserl opened up the world of subjectivity to being taken seriously as a subject of science, thereby expanding the scope of science to account for more than physical objects. Thus, while Husserl’s contemporaries, such as Brentano, were aiming at establishing a new kind of psychology that would ground the humanities as a science

82 MacIntyre, Edith Stein, 37. 83 Ibid., 22. 84 Kant, Critique 27, 257-275. 85 MacIntyre, Edith Stein, 40.

Lovestone 30

distinct from natural science, 86 Husserl aimed to establish a foundation for both types of science so that both types of knowing were equal and complimentary.87 The scientific method of investigation that Husserl developed to take subjectivity seriously as a subject of science is referred to as the phenomenological reduction. This is the method that Stein employs in her phenomenology. Yet in the period of time that Stein worked closely with Husserl he further developed the phenomenological reduction into a deeper investigation of subjectivity that eventually became known as epoché.

The Epoché. It was mentioned in the previous chapter that Husserl remained a scientist in his writing style and openness to changing his theories. Even while Husserl leveraged critiques of science, it was not in a spirit of rejection. As Spiegelberg explains: “On the contrary, he [Husserl] meant to aid it, not to abolish it, both by strengthening it internally and by backing it up in its role as an aid to the realization of man’s fundamental purpose in life.”88 This means that in the beginning, formative period of phenomenology it was shaped in close relationship to science in both establishing its foundations as well as thinking about how scientific knowledge could survive the crisis induced by Hume’s critique. Husserl pushed for science to address questions that could validate knowledge of the material world by way of better understanding how we perceive the world. Thus, Husserl developed a scientific method for the investigation of what was not physical but what was ‘subjective.’ This was the phenomenological reduction. The phenomenological reduction as a method of investigation identifies and ‘reduces’ any analytical interpretations or meanings that is layered onto an object as it is immediately given in everyday experience to analyze a subject for what it is in its own terms. As Gubser describes it: “…Husserl’s phenomenological method did not purpose a straightforward form of empirical observation but something much more basic: a set of intuitive procedures for uncovering the essential structures and possibilities of man’s

86 Marianne Sawicki, Body, Text, and Science: The Literacy of Investigative Practices and the Phenomenology of Edith Stein (Boston: Kluwer, 1997), 52. 87 Ibid., 52. 88 Spiegelberg, The Phenomenological Movement, 75.

Lovestone 31

prescientific experience.”89 By ‘prescientific,’ Gubser is referring to how this method sought to understand how something was experienced before analysis. In other words, the reduction takes a subject and pulls it out of all its analytical interconnectedness to understand what it is in itself. It is a rigorous and challenging method and is difficult to understand. Partly this is because it is not a method to investigate material things but a method that looks at the immaterial and the various meaning-contexts or interpretations ascribed to an object. It is a scientific method developed for a specific kind of content—the content of the humanities (how we make meaning). The method of the phenomenological reduction is perhaps less difficult to understand in comparison to the classic scientific method. The scientific method typically begins with observation, and then a particular object of inquiry is chosen in order to isolate a key factor that can be manipulated in order to figure out what something is. The information from the scientific method provides clarity and direction that helps to resolve misinterpretations and competing claims about the object of investigation. Many are familiar with this process, whether or not it is recognized as ‘the scientific method,’ and it takes many forms. One intimate and familiar form is how the scientific method works as medical diagnoses. Diagnosis is the scientific method in action where a physician observes a patient’s presentation and listens to his or her experiences. On that basis, the physician rules out (‘reduces’) any possibilities of what the sickness is by running tests to isolate a factor, in effect pulling out one object of investigation of its interconnectedness (the whole of the patient’s bodily experiences and their subjective interpretations of symptoms). The physician, by reducing as many ‘false’ interpretations of symptoms or contributing factors will make a diagnosis and prescribe care or medications directed at what the sickness is in and of itself—which, of course, presupposes the knowledge base that was afforded by previous longer episodes of applying the scientific method that has isolated the particular sickness enough to understand how it will respond to treatment.90

89 Gubser, The Far Reaches, 9. 90 Part of the reason I chose to use medical diagnoses as a way to explain the reduction is that Stein discusses to the role of empathy in medical diagnosis. See Edith Stein, On the

Lovestone 32

The phenomenological reduction is an empirical (meaning observational and experimental) method that strives to see what something is. The phenomenological term given for being able to see the whole picture of something as it is in and of itself is essence. Another term for seeing the essence of something is eidetic: “It was this intuition of essences that Husserl denominated eidetic, a very important theme of his early work that signaled his rejection of the simple empiricism associated with nineteenth-century positive science.”91 Later on as this chapter takes a close look at Stein’s use of the phenomenological method, her work can be distinguished from the common critical misunderstandings about phenomenology as “essentialist,” which means that phenomenology is an ungrounded methodology that rejects the particulars of social context. While phenomenology aimed to uncover the essence of objects, it was not an essentialism. As Gubser notes: “This essentialism [the early phenomenological reduction] must be sharply distinguished from the idealist philosophy of Kant, Hegel, or Fichte, for the earlier Husserl did not privilege the reality of mind over independent external being.”92 Yet the critique leveraged against phenomenology that its method leads to the rejection of the real world and is thus another essentialism has merit when it comes to the epoché. The ten years after the publication of Logical Investigations in 1900/1901, Husserl evolved the phenomenological reduction into a transcendental (meaning examining the cognitive structures of knowledge, not what is other-worldly) viewpoint, which resulted in the epoché. 93

...after publishing the Logical Investigations, Husserl started arguing for the need to suspend the natural attitude, the original belief in the reality of the world. He offered two techniques for doing so, both anathema to most of his realist disciples. The epoché referred to the bracketing of belief in the natural world, the determination to refrain from judgment regarding its actual existence… From here, Husserl took the further step of ‘reducing’ this paranthesized experience to what he increasingly deemed its ultimate foundation in the purified ego. The phenomenological (or transcendental)

Problem of Empathy, translated by W. Stein, 3rd edition (Washington, DC: ICS Publications, 1988), 70. 91 Gubser, The Far Reaches, 15-16 92 Ibid., 16. 93 Spiegelberg, The Phenomenological Movement, 121-122.

Lovestone 33

reduction uncovered the pure (or transcendental) ego that stood at the base of experience and partially constituted the reality it perceived. For Husserl, as we have seen, this new analytic dimension simply deepened the project he had launched in Logical Investigations.94

Husserl’s turning away from an emphasis on external reality (realism) to one that asserted that reality ultimately depended a construction of the mind (idealism) started in the academic year of 1905-1906.95 Stein would begin working in phenomenology with him in 1913, and was among the many students who rejected Husserl’s idealist turn. As Gubser points out: “...she accepted certain methodological innovations of Husserl’s later thought, although she balked at its putative idealism.”96 In her concrete application of the phenomenological reduction and her commitment to realism she remained one of the most important challengers of Husserl’s idealism, which will be discussed more fully in the next chapter. Husserl’s epoché is extremely difficult to understand. Even established Husserlian scholars have difficulty grasping this method. One such scholar, David Hall, talks about his failure to achieve the phenomenological viewpoint of the epoché: “Well, I have tried to follow Husserl’s instructions for the performance of the phenomenological reduction, and I have to report that nothing of any philosophical interest occurred—and certainly there was not opened up to me ‘a new region of being never before delimited in its peculiarity.’”97 Additionally, Hall is critical of a method that is revelatory and requires conversion—meaning, the epoché is a method that requires a transformation of the self that in the moment of conversation becomes enlightened. For Hall: There is—to put it no stronger than this—something dismal and dogmatic about a philosophy whose utility, cogency, and plausibility depend essentially, not on objective arguments, rational analyses, or the critical consideration of evidence available to all, but rather on the individual philosopher’s having undergone some esoteric experience the nature of which he is then in principle unable to communicate.98

94 Gubser, The Far Reaches, 17. 95 David Bell, Husserl (New York: Routledge, 1990), 153. 96 Gubser, The Far Reaches, 117. 97 David Hall, Husserl, 162. 98 Ibid., 162.

Lovestone 34

Hall goes on to see the epoché as fundamentally a religious conversion based on Husserl’s own description of the epoché in the Crisis of European Sciences: Perhaps it will even become manifest that the total phenomenological attitude and the epoché belonging to it are destined in essence to effect, at first, a complete personal transformation, comparable in the beginning to a religious conversion, which then, however, over and above this, bears within itself the significance of the greatest existential transformation which is assigned as a task to mankind as such.99 The epoché and its fundamental idealism resulted in the first ‘schism’ of the phenomenological movement. This is because it departed from the realist phenomenology of Husserl’s prior publication. The epoché was a different starting place than the earlier, less developed, iteration of the reduction. The epoché requires the bracketing or automatic removal of what is referred to as the natural attitude. The bracketing of the natural attitude required that absolutely everything in the world, including other people, were removed as a contaminating understanding the true essence of everything. For Husserl, the resultant transcendental idealism, especially that the reduction bracketed other people, resulted in a problem of solipsism: “The subsequent discovery that the objective world was ultimately the achievement of the transcendental subjective constituted by its intentional acts would seem to make the conclusion inevitable that the other ego is really only a projection of the solus ipse.”100

The epoché requirement of suspending other people and the reality of the world is the key point of contention for many of the students and colleagues who were drawn to work with Husserl in phenomenology because of his earlier publication, the Logical Investigations. As Gubser points out, “It was this so-called realist Husserl who inspired the first generation of phenomenologists. In the two breakthrough volumes of Logical Investigations in 1900-1901, Husserl outlined a phenomenology that, for disciples, was

99 Edmund Husserl, The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology, trans. with introduction by David Carr (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1970), 137. See also §71 “The danger of misunderstanding the ‘universality’ of the phenomenological-psychological epoché. The decisive significance of the correct understanding,” 244-257. 100 Spiegelberg, The Phenomenological Movement, 139.

Lovestone 35

deeply enmeshed in worldly existence that imbued the world of experience.”101 Yet with the publication of Ideas in 1913 that signaled Husserl’s transcendental turn thereafter there were two distinct phenomenological tracks that resulted in two very different assertions about the real world: “Thus, the eve of saw the delineation of two distinct phenomenological trajectories, one aimed at the transcendental purification from consciousness of all traces of the world, the other designed to identify essences in the world.”102Stein was one among the many phenomenologists who did not support the further development of Husserl’s phenomenology into a new form of idealism. How she asserted a unified foundation of the science and remained committed to a realist phenomenology will be explored in the next chapter. The results of Husserl’s epoché was his conclusion that reality is constituted by what he referred to as the transcendental ego, or the transcendental i. Husserl’s transcendental i was the ultimate basis of the subjectivity of science. But the notion of the transcendental i removes all personal and individual characteristics to be a viewpoint that any person could occupy.103 It is a viewpoint on the world that removes any personal quirks of the particular knower who occupies that position.104 Because the viewpoint of the transcendental i could be occupied by anyone, Husserl inherently argues that different bodies are interchangeable, 105 and that particular bodily differences have no bearing on how the world is viewed. In other words, the transcendental i viewpoint it means that through the epoché I can displace and occupy another’s viewpoint to gain multiple viewpoint perspectives for myself.106 This is because fundamentally the transcendental i viewpoint constitutes all possible viewpoints so as to make interchangeability possible. As Spiegelberg explains, in the last Cartesian Meditations he “did show how the transcendental ego constitutes other egos as equal partners in an intersubjective community, which in turn forms the foundation for the

101 Gubser, The Far Reaches, 16. 102 Ibid., 64. 103 Sawicki, Body, Text, and Science, 97. 104 Ibid., 103. 105 Ibid., 112. 106 Ibid., 126.

Lovestone 36

‘objective,’ i.e., the intersubjective world.”107 However, a displacement of others is not intersubjectivity, even though Spiegelberg wants to find this in Husserl. A more through explanation of how the Husserlian transcendental i and the method of the epoché is not intersubjective from the standpoint of Steinian empathy will be more thoroughly detailed in the next chapter. As Husserl continued to work out his transcendental position, the unified foundation of the sciences as a singular subjective viewpoint became untenable. Husserl eventually returned to a realism with the concept of lifeworld asserted in his later works after he failed to develop the basis of the transcendental i into a “system” of phenomenological philosophy. Published two years before his death, in the Crisis of European Sciences Husserl claims that the crisis in the sciences that had developed from Galileo called for the necessity of returning to a lifeworld as a way to solve the crisis.108 However, he was, again, not able to fully develop the new approach of the concept lifeworld into a philosophical system. Husserl eventually gave up on his dream of finding the foundation for all scientific knowledge. Part of what made the defeat of achieving a coherent phenomenology that would securely ground the sciences so bitter for Husserl was that the inability to solve the crisis in science meant also that the correlated problems in society would continue. It was the scientific indifference to meaning-making of his time that Husserl contributed as a cause for the current crisis in Europe. Extending the possibilities of scientific knowledge to address the type of questions typically reserved for the humanities was Husserl’s goal and what he saw as what would resolve the crisis of his time: “Now the incapacity and unwillingness of science to face problems of value and meaning because of its confinement to mere positive facts seemed to him [Husserl] to be at the very root of the crisis of science and of mankind itself.”109

107 Spiegelberg, The Phenomenological Movement, 140. 108 Ibid., xxxvii. 109 Ibid., 75.

Lovestone 37

Husserl’s hoped to reconnect the rift between two forms of knowing where the ‘impersonal’ orientation of the sciences of his time110 would no longer result in the indifference to civic life that inherently came with it: “Modern cynicism and irrationalism, both terrifyingly prevalent in Husserl’s old age, were symptoms of the scientific abdication of duty, not solutions to it. To counter their appeal, Husserl hoped to rejoin science with subjective experience.”111 Understanding Husserl’s hope gives insight into the larger implications of his failure—that European society and science would continue in its fragmented state. In the first chapter I touched on the difficulties with defining phenomenology because different phenomenologists have developed phenomenology in distinct and diverse ways. Another reason why phenomenology is often misunderstood and misrepresented has to do with the way in which Husserl’s epoché has been adopted into other disciplines in the humanities that poorly understand what the epoché is and the extent to which it reflects what phenomenology is in general. Often the epoché is taken simply to mean that a scholar will engage with a subject without judgment, that the scholar will bracket his or her culturally conditioned attitude in order to achieve a better perception of and engagement with the subject in and of itself. Yet, while the suspension of judgment is a key characteristic of the phenomenological reduction and the epoché, it is not as simple as that. As well, anyone who wants to attain a sense of openness and non-judgment of his or her subject does not need to drawn on the Husserlian reduction or epoché to ground that viewpoint. This is because the use of the epoché asserts a fundamental ontological claim about a subject, where, as was explaind above, the epoché asserts a displacement with another individual person to acquire that knowledge for oneself: it is an inherently violent and oppressive act. Thus I see the epoché as contradictory to the deepest values that inform the current ethics of humanities scholars who works with human subjects. While the epoché is used by notable

110 Marianne Sawicki, “Personal Connections: The Phenomenology of Edith Stein,” in Yearbook of the Irish Philosophical Society (Maynooth: Irish Philosophcial Society: 2004): 152. 111 Gubser, The Far Reaches, 58.

Lovestone 38

anthropologists, such as Michael Jackson,112 the epoché contradicts their fundamental commitment to valuing the subject’s irreducible agency and their commitment to not to do violence to the subjects they study. In other words, the epoché is contraindicated for scholarship that seeks to preserve cultural diversity and their subject’s agency. The next section of this chapter examines what is referred to as ‘worldly phenomenology’ and its context of crisis in European society.113 This section turns the attention away from Husserl to the phenomenology that remained committed to a realist position and diverged from Husserl’s transcendentalism. The group of worldly phenomenologists included but was not limited to Stein, who was herself a key contributor to this group in their attempts to reform society. One of the central concepts for worldly phenomenologists was the concept of person, which was central to Stein’s own phenomenology. The phenomenological concept of person asserted a new sense of valuation of human beings over and against the dominant indifferent individualistic view of human life at this time. This chapter then ends with a view of the violence particularly against Stein and her work that manifested as racism and sexism that were significant characteristics of the context of crisis in society during the first part of the twentieth century.

The Crisis of European Society and Worldly Phenomenology So far I have argued from different angles that a unifying definition for phenomenology as either a method or historical tradition is not possible. A key contributing factor to definitional difficulties discussed in the last section was how Husserl’s turn towards transcendentalism resulted in a ‘schism’ in phenomenology that occurred only about a decade after its beginning:114

112 Michael Jackson, Minima Ethnographica: Intersubjectivity and the Anthropological Project (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998). 113 I frequently make use of Gubser’s way of referring to realist phenomenologists as ‘worldly phenomenologists.’ Because of Gubser’s way of illustrating how realist phenomenology was applied concretely in social reforms in the world of central Europe, I find using his term to be a helpful way of paying special focus to the realism of phenomenology against other realisms and realistic philosophies which this thesis does not address. See the explanation of his use of this term: Gubser, The Far Reaches, 6. 114 Ibid., 17.

Lovestone 39

But with the Ideas I of 1913, the founder announced a new transcendental phenomenology privileging the pure ego that supposedly underwrote experience, an ego purged of any unfounded assumptions about worldly reality, of any immediate embeddedness in the world--a turn that most early disciples took as a betrayal of phenomenology as they knew it.115

This section gives insight into this lesser known, non-Husserlian worldly phenomenology that is exemplified in Stein’s work. In addition to the difficulties of defining phenomenology as a result of its early schism, early German phenomenology is hard to grasp as a whole due to the disruption of the traumatic and chaotic events that shaped phenomenology’s beginnings. Within the first two decades of phenomenology’s start in 1900, most of its leading figures were killed in the war or dispersed to other countries. As Gubser points out: “In the short span of a decade, German phenomenology lost its leading lights and the school its German locus.”116 The first few decades of the twentieth century in Europe were a time of significant violence and oppression. In response to a violent and oppressive context, the goal of worldly phenomenology was to establish new ways of knowing that would bring about a new society. Phenomenology, both in its idealism and worldly realism iterations, at a fundamental level is a way of thinking about a better world and the possibilities of creating anew a different kind of society.

The Concept of Crisis. Crisis has particular meaning as a historical concept. Husserl drew on this historical concept of crisis in The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology (1936). In Germany in particular the concept of crisis came into use after the French Revolution as a way to delineate historical periods. But it was also an imprecise catchword to signify social change, particularly in economics and politics.117 Thus, the meaning of crisis in its various uses and contexts was highly

115 Gubser, The Far Reaches, 16. 116 Ibid., 131. Gubser also provides an excellent list of key texts in the specialized genre of historical studies regarding the European Crisis. See Gubser’s endnote 5, 231-232. 117 Reinhart Koselleck and Michaela W. Richter, “Crisis,” in Journal of the History of Ideas 67, no. 2 (April 2006): 363, 367.

Lovestone 40

ambivalent. However, the lack of clarity about the meaning of crisis itself can be seen as emblematic of the historical experiences the concept is meant to signify.118 For the twentieth century, crisis was used as a way to characterize the particular change in humanity that had brought about a new epoch that resulted in profound alienation of the individual from the world and how the mass violence and breakdowns of government structures signaled a relapse of the progress of civilization. The sense of relapse into pre-civilization raised significant questions about the possibilities of humanity in looking towards the future. In the 1936 Crisis of European Sciences, Husserl in particular broadened crisis to be a theme for the history of science, where the crisis of science that reached its apex with Hume & Kant had its genesis in the seventeenth century starting with the dichotomy of Cartesian mind-body dualism. As Koselleck and Richter explain, Husserl’s phenomenology “is meant to bridge the chasm between science addicted to observable reality and the internal life of human beings.”119 As explained in the last section, Husserl published the Crisis of European Sciences towards the end of his career as part of his turn back towards a more worldly position when the transcendental i became untenable as a solid foundation for the sciences. At the same time, Husserl’s 1936 work can be seen as reconnecting with the group of first-generation phenomenologists who never took Husserl’s detoured route through transcendentalism. A deep part of the rejection of the transcendental idealism from many of Husserl’s contemporary phenomenologists was the way in which a worldly, meaning ‘realist,’ phenomenology could be harnessed to address the deep concerns of the context of crisis in European society. One of the things that would be lost from a transcendental idealist perspective would be the loss of the knowledge of particulars necessary for addressing the social problems of the time. With a worldly phenomenology, problems could be understood as rooted in particular subjects not reducible down to a disembodied and unparticular singular ego or imprecise idea that could not constitute a call for change for the particular situations in society they were facing. Those that rejected transcendentalism

118 Koselleck and Richter, “Crisis,” 399. 119 Ibid., 398.

Lovestone 41

were concerned with addressing the reality they lived in and being able to make bring about new forms of society. In The Far Reaches: Phenomenology, Ethics, and Social Renewal in Central Europe, Michael Gubser shows how the lesser-known group of worldly phenomenologists, which included Stein among many others, produced systematic reflections on moral life that set forth ideals of right and wrong and coherent systems of values that promised a renewal of European society from the effects of the world wars and the totalitarianisms and dictatorships. 120 Gubser shows how worldly phenomenological concepts of social reform inspired and underwrote the massive changes in Czechoslovakia and Poland’s governments against Soviet tyrannical rule as well as the major reforms of Catholic doctrine during the twentieth century. Gubser shows the concrete application of the ethical goals embedded in phenomenology as they were evidenced in the thinking of Václav Havel, Jan Patočka, and Karol Józef Wojtyła and the reforms constituted by Charter 77 and the Vatican II respectively. Gubser argues phenomenology was central to the formation of a new form of society alternative to the dominant Western-Capitalist models. In Catholic history, Józef Wojtyła wrote phenomenological treatises that strengthened the purposes of Vatican II to reform doctrine so that Catholicism could come to terms with the contemporary world.121 Gubser shows how these historical movements and changes were culminations of the ethics and social concepts inherent in the start of phenomenology with Franz Brentano and the early Edmund Husserl: “…advocates drew on phenomenology beyond academic walls into an engagement with the social and political traumas of the century. Both Brentano and [the early] Husserl outlined a practical role for philosophy in lending significance to modern life.”122 For worldly phenomenology, the central motif of many phenomenologists is a an ethics that sought to protect and cultivate the uniqueness of each person that opposed the impersonal power structures of dictatorships and the impersonal valuation of human life

120 Gubser, The Far Reaches, 1. 121 Ibid., 21-23. 122 Ibid., 1-2.

Lovestone 42

that resulted from industrialized wars.123 One of the central figures whose thought was a resource for many early phenomenologists, especially Stein, in cultivating these insights about each individual as a valuable person was Max Scheler.

Max Scheler & the Concept of Person. While her phenomenological method was drawn from the work of Husserl, Max Scheler inspired Stein’s focus on person and community. 124 Reciprocally, Stein too inspired Scheler’s work, where her dissertation on empathy became a part of Scheler’s updated edition of his work on sympathy.125 Stein was a part of the group of phenomenology students at Göttingen who invited Scheler a few weeks every semester to give guest lectures.126 So while Husserl was becoming more and more abstract regarding the foundations of science being transcendental, simultaneously Scheler was taking seriously concepts in human relationships, like love, hate, resentment, and shame.127 It was Scheler who was one of the key models for the realist phenomenologists who took their own path away from Husserl.

Max Ferdinand Scheler (1874-1928) is remembered today in philosophy for his contributions to the early period of phenomenology as well as the ways in which the reception and long-term acknowledgement of his work suffered from the violence and censorship by the Nazi regime in the 1930s and 1940s.128 Like Husserl, Scheler’s social philosophy was directed at his cultural context of crisis.129 As well, like the early Husserl,

123 Gubser, The Far Reaches, 8. 124 Sawicki, Body, Text, and Science, 104. 125 In German Wesen und Formen der Sympathie published in 1926. See John Hughes, “Edith Stein’s Doctoral Thesis on Empathy and the Philosophical Climate from Which It Emerged,” Teresanium 36 (1985): 464. For Scheler’s references to Stein in the English translation see: Max Scheler, The Nature of Sympathy, translated by Peter Health (London: Routledge, 1954) xlix, 9, 13, 18. 126 Mary Catherine Baseheart, Person in the World: Introduction to the Philosophy of Edith Stein (Dordrecht: Springer, 2010), 7. 127 Hughes, “Edith Stein’s Doctoral Thesis,” 464. 128 Zachary Davis and Anthony Steinbock, “Max Scheler,” The Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta (Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab at Stanford University, Fall 2016), accessed March 16, 2017, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/scheler/. 129 Spiegelberg, The Phenomenological Movement, 271.

Lovestone 43

Scheler’s philosophy led him to refute Kant. In particular, Scheler focused on the objectivity of values from a sociological perspective as a critique of the Kantian assertion that values only have pure, ideal forms.130 Within this critique, the concept on which hung the crux of Scheler’s refutation of Kant’s ethical formalism was the concept of person, as Gubser explains:

The linchpin of Scheler’s philosophy was the concept of the person. Kantian formalism, he groused, confined man to the rational will, universalizing and homogenizing him as an ‘indifferent thoroughfare’ for mental activity. For Scheler, by contrast, a person was a “concrete and essential unity” of all experiences and faculties, an ‘immediately coexperienced unity of experiencing.’ Several points follow from this. First, a person was not a thing, but rather an act-unity, a being who existed “solely in the execution of intentional acts.131 Like Stein, with the concept of person Scheler rejected the key assertion in Husserl’s notion of the transcendental i that inherently asserted the bodies that individuals occupy are interchangeable: “The significance of “person” within Scheler’s anti-transcendental program lies in fact that persons are not interchangeable… Scheler objects that life is such that it is impossible for someone to stand in another’s shoes.”132 Additionally, Scheler’s notion of person was a critique of how the individualism of modernity contributed to devaluation of humanity. His critique was framed as a sharp delineation of individual and person.”133 “Person” signified that each human being had his or her own distinct quality that manifested in a unique expressive character as personality in interpersonal engagement that was irreplaceable, where the person was the ultimate victim of the impersonal violence of the early twentieth century. Conversely, the individual signified the interchangeability with the resultant profound sense of anonymity that Scheler saw as so caustic of the human spirit in this time period.134 As Gubser explains: “This invidious distinction structured the widespread phenomenological mistrust of the contemporary world: modern crisis, in their view, originated in the

130 Sawicki, Body, Text, and Science, 32. 131 Gubser, The Far Reaches, 87. 132 Sawicki, Body, Text, and Science, 41. 133 Gubser, The Far Reaches, 17. 134 Ibid., 17-18.

Lovestone 44

dehumanization of man, the degeneration of persons into individuals and interpersonal communities into anonymous masses.”135 The emphasis on person underwrote social reforms that aimed towards community as the opposite of the “anonymous mass or legion” that emphasized a togetherness among people. This was encapsulated in the term ‘solidarity,’ (a term best known in contemporary times in its meaning in Catholic thought as a result of Pope John Paul II’s exposure to worldly phenomenologists). Gubser explains: “Moreover, personal openness to and ‘solidarity’ with others--another prevalent term—contrasted with the self-enclosed, isolated modern atoms that phenomenologists understood by the term ‘individual.’”136 Stein would draw on Scheler’s concept of person and develop her own distinct concept of personhood. She would also extend the notion of person as central to her in terms of how developmental aspects of unique personhood ground the possibilities of self-knowledge and knowledge of other persons. Ultimately Stein’s formulation of personhood is that person constitutes the unified foundation for the natural sciences and humanities. Stein’s account of various developmental possibilities of personal development is what I refer to as her concept of unfolded person, which is explored further in chapter five.

The Impact of Crisis on Edith Stein. It is important to know how the historical context of crisis during the first decades of the twentieth century shaped Stein’s life and reception of her work. Understanding her historical context is key for understanding Stein’s first two phenomenological works: On the Problem of Empathy (her doctorate dissertation) and Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities.137 On the Problem of Empathy is the title of Stein’s Ph.D. dissertation that she self- published in 1917. Most of her doctoral studies in phenomenology were at University of Göttingen from 1913-1915. This is where Stein was when the assassinations of Archduke

135 Gubser, The Far Reaches, 18. 136 Ibid., 18. 137 Hanna-Barbara Gerl-Falkovitz, “Edith Stein’s Little-Known Side: Social Philosophy out of the Spirit of Phenomenology,” American Catholic Philosophcial Quarterly 83:4 (2009), 557-558.

Lovestone 45

Franz Ferdinand and Sophie Maria Josephine Albina Gräfin Chotek von Chotkow und Wognin occurred on June 28, 1914. In her autobiography, Stein talks about the ways in which no one in her world thought the assassinations would result in war or impact her studies in any way:

July was dominated by the question: Will war break out in Europe? Everything seemed to indicate that a storm was brewing. But we found it inconceivable that it would really come to that. No one growing up during or since the war can possibly imagine the security in which we assumed ourselves to be living before 1914.138

However, war was declared a month later. Stein found out about the declaration of war from two of her colleagues who interrupted her at her desk while reading Arthur Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Idea. Her colleagues let her know all lectures had been cancelled and most of her faculty and colleagues were leaving university that day to travel home before the railroads were closed to private traffic.139 Stein herself left university and returned to her family in Breslau, a town only a few hours from the Russian border.140 While back in Breslau with her family, Stein attended lectures on surgery and learned basic nursing skills from her sister Erna’s medical textbooks who was a medical doctor to volunteer as a nurse.141 Stein volunteered for unconditional service with the Red Cross, and while waiting for the call to service she returned to Göttingen in October to prepare for her coursework examinations, which she passed with highest honors.142 Shortly thereafter she was called to service and arrived at a military hospital in Mährisch- Weiskirchen, Austria, on April 7, 1915, for about four months of service. Stein worked on a ward for infectious diseases with patients who came from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds represented by the Austro-Hungarian Empire of the time. Later, she was awarded the medal of valor for her service.143 After her Red Cross service, Stein

138 Edith Stein, Life in a Jewish Family: Her Unfinished Autobiographical Account, translated by Josephine Koeppel (Washington DC: ICS Publications, 1986), 293. 139 Ibid., 294-295. 140 Baseheart, Person in the World, 8. 141 Stein, Life in a Jewish Family, 298. 142 Ibid., 304, 316-317. 143 Baseheart, Person in the World, 9.

Lovestone 46

returned to her family in Breslau and began her work on her dissertation and final defense. During the last year of preparing for her final defense Husserl obtained a position at a different university and left Göttingen. Stein decided to follow him to the University of Freiburg in July 1916, which meant that Stein would undergo being examined by an entirely new committee.144 Stein was the first of Husserl’s students to undergo examinations on August 3, 1916.145 She passed with the rarely awarded distinction summa cum laude. In her autobiography Stein recalls the high contrast from the glow of the celebration of her accomplishment against the conditions of that night: with a radiant smile and flowers in her hair she walked home on blacked-out streets under the threat of air raids.146 After graduating as a Ph.D., over the next two years Stein worked as Husserl’s assistant as the 1917 Russian Revolution and major collapse of the Austrian and German monarchies unfolded at the end of the war in 1918.147 After her work as Husserl’s assistant, Stein applied for university professorships, but she was turned down primarily because she was a woman. Instead she traveled around Europe as a public lecturer starting in 1927 during the period of European reconstruction, where her reputation as scholar and educator spread throughout Germany and to and Austria. She was an important voice for many in this historical moment who were seeking better ways of social life for the future.148 In 1932 she accepted a position as chair of scientific education at the German Institute for Educational Theory at Münster.149 While in the midst of preparing reforms of higher education for the wider world of German universities, her academic career was ended on February 25, 1933 as a result of the anti- Jewish laws Hitler enacted shortly after coming to power in January of that year.150

144 Stein, Life in a Jewish Family, 386. 145 Ibid., 400, 408, 412. 146 Stein, Life in a Jewish Family, 414. 147 Gerl, “Stein’s Little-Known Side,” 556. 148 Baseheart, Person in the World, 14. 149 Ibid., 14, 25 150 Ibid., 15.

Lovestone 47

Thereafter, in October of 1933 Stein entered the Carmelite monastery in Cologne, Germany, and assumed the habit as Sister Teresa Benedicta of the Cross on April 15, 1934. She took her final vows in 1938 just days before Husserl died as a refugee in a monastery in Günterstal in Freiburg.151 Stein continued her phenomenological work while in monastery wedded with theology. In between her larger philosophic projects she wrote pieces of her autobiography as a way to speak to the “Jewish question” of the time.152 After Kristallnacht and worsening conditions for Jews, Stein moved to a Carmelite monastery in Holland in 1938.153 In July of 1942 when Catholic bishops protested the severe societal regulation measures against Jews, such as strictures on education for Jewish children and mass deportations, Nazi authorities responded aggressively.154 Two SS officers raided Stein’s monastery and arrested her, along with one of her biological sisters who had also converted to Catholicism and entered monastic life.155 Stein was transported by railroad to Auschwitz with many others.156 After a few days at the concentration camp, Stein was assassinated in a gas chamber on August 9, 1942.157 It is believed that Stein is buried there in an unmarked mass grave. From beginning to end, Stein’s adult life and work were shaped by the violence and oppression of her time. The darkest aspects of the crisis of European culture that culminated in the Jewish Holocaust by the Nazis during the first half of the twentieth century resulted in the all-too-soon loss one of the most brilliant thinkers of the twentieth century. Among her phenomenologist colleagues, Stein was one of the few who openly criticized the totalitarianism and racism in Germany. At one point, Stein wrote to Pope Pius XII while in her chaired position in Münster urging him to take action, which only resulted in his personal blessing to her and her family.158

151 Stein, Life in a Jewish Family, 426; Baseheart, Person in the World (endnote 26), 154. 152 Ibid., 23. 153 Baseheart, Person in the World, 17 154 Ibid., 18. 155 Ibid.,, 18. 156 Ibid., 19. 157 Ibid., 20. 158 Ibid., 25-26.

Lovestone 48

In her teaching and phenomenology Stein addressed the underlying concepts that strengthened the racist ideologies that would have profound consequences personally for her, for the millions murdered, and for world history. Moreover, the discipline of sociology as a science began at this time.159 The dominant categories that organized the study of societies at this time were race and blood that were drawn from the science of biology.160 Blood-and-soil as a sociological category manifested as the romanticism of Nazi ideology, where blood was thought to form the deepest layer of power of a nation’s people out of which a new race of Nietzschean ‘supermen’ could be brought about.161 Stein rejected the concept of race in favor of the concept of person as a way to organize the study of society.162 Stein’s concept of person will be further explored in the next chapters of this thesis. Other than her status as a Jew during the time of the world wars that resulted in her murder, the fact that Stein was a woman is why she was unable to obtain a faculty position at university and a big reason for why the wider philosophical community has not appreciated her work. Stein’s writings have survived not only racist oppression but also gendered oppression both in her time and ours. In her own lifetime, Stein’s dream of becoming a university professor was denied based on her gender. Husserl sent a letter of recommendation on her behalf expressing full support of her intellectual qualifications. However, his recommendation letter for Stein’s application for habilitation at Göttingen ended with the sarcastic note: “If the career of university teaching were supposed to be open for ladies, then I would be the first to recommend her warmly for admission to Habilitation.”163 As well, the philosophers that handled her application at Göttingen did not follow the normal procedures for considering applicants, and preemptively rejected her applicadtion upon receipt, out of a supposed “kindness.”164 Stein appealed this rejection in writing to the Prussian Ministry for Science, Art, and Education. Her appeal resulted in a ruling in 1921

159 Gerl, “Stein’s Little-Known Side,” 563. 160 Ibid., 560, 564. 161 Ibid., 565-566, 162 Ibid., 566. 163 Translated in MacIntyre, Edith Stein, 106. 164 Ibid., 106.

Lovestone 49

that women could not be rejected from habilitation at universities in Germany based on sex.165 Stein did not reapply for habilitation to Göttingen, but this opened doors for other women from that point forward. It is my sense that her status as a woman also contributes to the lack of appreciation of her work in contemporary scholarship. There is a deeper dynamic that is brought to light in looking at the lack of reception of Stein’s phenomenology. The profound lack of reception of her work to the present has something to do with gendered oppressions that structure how certain ways of thinking are privileged over others. At the heart of Stein’s work is the assertion that the person is not self-sufficient but is utterly dependant on others to achieve a sense of individuation and of knowledge of the outside world. In her work, others are not a problem but are necessary for conditioning the possibility of knowing in the first place. In looking comparatively, one of the power dynamics at play is to think of Stein primarily as a ‘female’ thinker, whose sense of openness to the world and insistence on relationship and the value of emotions directly challenges the deepest assumptions about male scholars, about their ability to know independent of others and emotions that is predicated on the fundamental idea they are self-contained and in such self-containment they have valid knowledge. For Stein’s contemporaries, most of which were male, other consciousnesses are not valued as necessary to knowledge but are a significant impediment to asserting valid knowledge.166 The assumptions and emphasis on absolute human autonomy and the way that valuing self-containment has been the long-term normative basis of power in the history of western civilization is often what is at play in the lack of recognition of relational- based theories that posit human nature as radically dependant and vulnerable. The potential of a Steinian approach to knowledge is that she decenters this male-centric view that has dominated and structured western ways of knowing. Stein’s subsequent writings on women are a point of departure of a deeper and more profound study. However, this

165 Baseheart, Person in the World, 77. 166 For example, see Maurice Merleau-Ponty, “Other Selves and the Human World,” Phenomenology of Perception, trans. Colin Smith (New York: Routledge, 2002): 403- 428.

Lovestone 50

line of inquiry can only be pointed out here. It must be bracketed, since it calls for a more robust comparative analysis of Stein’s male contemporaries. As explained previously in this chapter, Husserl returned to a realist position late in life with the concept ‘lifeworld’ (Lebenswelt). It was part of his last-ditch effort to establish a connection between science and the experiential world in the face of the failure of his idealism, and the Crisis of the European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology (1936) became his best-known work. In the Crisis, Husserl applies phenomenology to the study of society.167 In other words, Husserl himself exemplified how phenomenology is inherently sociological. Although Husserl made this return to a realist position and thereby rejoined the worldly phenomenologists of his time, it initiated his self-defeat. Shortly after this publication Husserl gave up on the possibility of finding the unified foundation for the natural and human sciences that would fully support his goal of establishing a philosophy as a rigorous science. Husserl wrote just a few years before he died: “Philosophy as a science, as serious, rigorous, indeed apodictically rigorous science—the dream is over.”168 The main argument of my thesis is that Stein accomplished this goal that Husserl had set for himself but failed to achieve, which she accomplishes with her first two works: On the Problem of Empathy (1917) and Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities (1922). As Baseheart points out, “It was Edith Stein’s conviction that phenomenology was the most appropriate approach to the investigation of the structure of the human personality, which would ultimately supply the grounding knowledge for the structure of the human sciences.”169 Stein shows that this foundation is the unfolded person. The remainder of this thesis now turns to an exploration of how Stein establishes this foundation.

167 Gubser, The Far Reaches, 17. 168 Husserl quoted in David Bell, Husserl, 232. 169 Baseheart, Person in the World, 42.

Lovestone 51

Chapter Three Steinian Empathy

This chapter examines Stein’s notion of empathy. First we will look at empathy as it had become a central topic of philosophical investigation before Stein entered the discourse as a graduate student. We will look at the ways in which Stein rules out the misinterpretations of empathy by her contemporaries, including Theodore Lipps, Max Scheler, and Edmund Husserl. As will be shown in this chapter, empathy in Stein’s male contemporaries’ philosophy ignored the bidirectional reciprocal aspect of empathy and only present a one-way view where the perspective of the author is unaffected in empathetic engagement. Stein’s contemporaries presented a one-way view, where the knower is the empowered position towards others. Empathy for her contemporaries meant a way of acting upon others, and they never critically engaged what their assertions of empathy meant for the other. Stein shows a different notion of empathy as an intersubjective and mutually enacting act. This chapter culminates with distinguishing between Husserl and Stein in terms of empathy. It is in their difference regarding empathy where we can pinpoint the divergence of their paths—one towards failure and one towards success. Empathy was the point of departure where Stein began to move beyond Husserl and thereafter formulate a foundation that could ground the sciences, therein achieving the dream that Husserl would renounce later in life.

Defining Empathy First it is important to clarify the meaning of empathy, which meant something more nuanced and technical within the philosophical conversation that Stein participated in than its typical meaning in contemporary everyday use. In English, the emphasis of ‘empathy’ is on feelings, particularly the ability to share and understand someone else’s feelings. There is typically a warm and fuzzy connotation about it because this view of empathy and feeling has to do with intimate connection with others in a deeply personal way. The common use of the term blurs together empathy, sympathy, and being united, or one, with someone. For the German word for empathy that Stein used, Einfühlung, the

Lovestone 52

focus is also primarily on feelings.170 However, the English and German words are not exact equivalents. As Sawicki explains, Einfühlung means both ‘feeling-into’ and ‘feeling-within’: “It is how you find yourself in your own experiences—you feel yourself within them.”171 Beyond what is lost in translation from German to English, the meaning of empathy was also complicated through the philosophizing of empathy as a key concept in epistemological discourse. By the time Stein started studying phenomenology empathy was a major topic in philosophy, and within this discourse there were competing viewpoints on exactly how empathy grounded an appropriate methodology for different fields in the humanities. As Dermot Moran summarizes: As Lipps, Scheler, Husserl and others quickly recognised, empathy does not constitute a single phenomenon but is a rather loose term for a large constellation of interrelated and many-layered activities, central not only to philosophy and psychology, but also to sociology, moral theory, politics and the whole edifice of the Geisteswissenschaften.172 Thus there were competing claims as to how empathy brought about knowledge in the discourse on empathy of Stein’s time that cast doubt on whether or not a method based on empathy was legitimate. For her dissertation, Stein took up the task of resolving the competing claims about empathy as a method of knowledge by looking at empathy phenomenologically.

Stein’s Method

Stein’s dissertation, On the Problem of Empathy, can be seen as a model example of how to use Husserl’s method of the phenomenological reduction that was explained in the last chapter. Stein followed Husserl’s method in order to discover what empathy is in

170 Mary Catherine Baseheart, “Edith Stein (1891-1942)” in The History of Women Philosophers, eds. Gilles Mènage and Beatrice H. Zedler (Lanham: University Press of America, 1984): 167. 171 Marianne Sawicki, “Personal Connections: The Phenomenology of Edith Stein,” in Yearbook of the Irish Philosophical Society (Maynooth: Irish Philosophcial Society: 2004): 151. 172 Dermot Moran, “The Problem of Empathy: Lipps, Scheler, Husserl and Stein,” Amor Amicitiae: On the Love that is Friendship. Essays in Medieval Thought and Beyond in Honor of the Rev. Professor James McEvoy, eds. Thomas A. Kelly and Phillip W. Rosemann (Dudley: Peeters, 2004): 272.

Lovestone 53

and of itself so as to resolve the contradictions and competing claims about empathy at the time.

Stein discovered that the root of the confusions and contradictions in the philosophical discourse about empathy that preceded her stemmed from taking empathy for granted in the basic assumption that other people and others’ experiences are actually available in the first place. In taking the ability to know others for granted, different thinkers developed conceptions about empathy that were mistaken because they never stopped to clarify what empathy is and how access to others is a even a possibility: All controversy over empathy is based on the implied assumption that foreign subjects and their experience are given to us. Thinkers deal with the circumstances of the occurrence, the effects, and the legitimacy of this givenness. But the most immediate undertaking is to consider the phenomenon of givenness in and by itself and to investigate its essence. We shall do this in the setting of the “phenomenological reduction.173 In other words, Stein did not assume that others and their experiences are automatically a given for the observer. From a phenomenological standpoint Stein is able to investigate empathy in and of itself in order to clarify how it is that others can be perceived: “Thus the first task in this domain, as in all domains, is to comprehend the phenomenon in its pure essence, freed from all the accidents of appearance. What is foreign experience in its givenness? How does the perception of foreign experience look?”174 For Stein’s contemporaries, diverging and competing assertions about empathy had to do with trying to establish a scientific explanation for the way people asserted knowledge about others. Their assertions had consequences for the ability to claim a scientific method for the humanities as well as claim whether or not there is an external reality. In order to reduce, i.e. ‘rule out,’ the misinterpretations of empathy as a result of jumping ahead of a fundamental understanding of empathy, Stein methodically addresses the different interpretations of empathy by her contemporaries. Stein clarifies more and more what empathy is by correcting their errors and thus is able to reduce away those

173 Edith Stein, On the Problem of Empathy, trans. W. Stein, 3rd edition (Washington, DC: ICS Publications, 1988), 3. 174 Ibid., 21.

Lovestone 54

misinterpretations: “Stein discusses, although for the most part only to dismiss, a number of rival accounts of empathy: not only those of and of Mill, but also theories grounded in psychological accounts of the genesis of empathy.”175 Phenomenologically, Stein challenges the misinterpretations of empathy by grounding her analysis in her own experiences. Thus, Stein’s abstract conclusions regarding empathy are contextualized by particular, concrete human experience. However, Stein does not use her own experiences in the form of narrative or vignettes but in the form of phenomenology as a scientifically precise and technical form of analysis. Hughes compares the level of Stein’s precision to what it is like to turn the wispy-thin pages of liturgical books: “… many of Stein’s layers of meaning which she peels away are so subtly close to Empathy itself, that it is like mistaking two wafer thin pages of a breviary for one.”176 And Sawicki emphasizes that Stein’s treatment of empathy departs from the warm and fuzzy connotations that popular meanings typically ascribe to it: “It is tough and technical. It develops very exact and rigorous criteria for when and how we are allowed to claim that we have communicated: that we have understood one another or have scientifically explained something about our environment.”177 Although Stein refers to many thinkers of her time to discuss and clarify their interpretations of empathy, the two key misinterpretations of empathy that she aims to correct in her dissertation are Theodor Lipps and Max Scheler.

Theodore Lipps. Theodor Lipps (1851-1914) is considered the philosopher whose work first made empathy central in philosophical and psychological contexts, where the term Einfühlung had previously been used only in theories of aesthetics.178 Lipps began is studies in Protestant theology and eventually turned to philosophy when he studied the work of Hermann Lotze whose work was a blend of logic and biology.

175 Alasdair MacIntyre, Edith Stein: A Philosophical Prologue 1913-1922 (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006), 79 176 John Hughes, “Edith Stein’s Doctoral Thesis on Empathy and the Philosophical Climate from Which It Emerged,” Teresanium 36 (1985): 483. 177 Sawicki, “Personal Connections,” 155. 178 Karsten Stueber, “Empathy,” The Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta (Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab at Stanford University, Spring 2017): Accessed March 20, 2017. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/empathy/.

Lovestone 55

Lipps started his university studies of philosophy at the University of Bonn in 1877 and thereafter worked in a teaching position with the famous chemist August Kekulé. In 1890, Lipps was chaired at the University of Breslau, and in 1894 Lipps succeeded the chair of philosophy previously held by at the University of for the remainder of his career.179 Stein came to engage with Lipps’ work and other philosophers in her dissertation per Husserl’s direction. Stein describes the comparative requirement for her dissertation on empathy a “bitter pill” to swallow when, in response to her dissertation proposal, she was given a long list of Lipps’ works to thoroughly study and incorporate.180 Stein was also aware of Lipps’ work from many of her colleagues who had been former students of Lipps at Munich who had transferred to Göttingen. It was Lipps’ former students who formed the heart of the phenomenological community Stein became a part of, referred to as ‘the Göttingen Circle.’ 181 For Lipps, empathy came to mean an “inner imitation” or “feeling oneself into” objects of contemplation.182 He describes empathy as a tendency to reproduce foreign gestures and expressions that evoke feelings that are then associated with the foreign person through projection.183 The observer ultimately becomes identical with another’s ego and takes the other’s place in a way that is more than representation or mental imagination, but is imitative:

I feel active in the movement or in the moving figure, and through projecting myself into it I feel myself striving and performing this same movement…In a word, I am now with my feeling of activity entirely and wholly in the moving figure. Event spatially, if we can speak of the spatial

179 Niels W. Bokhove and Karl Schuhmann, “Bibliographie der Schriften von Theodor Lipps,” Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 45, no. 1 (Jan.-Mar. 1991): 112. 180 Edith Stein, Life in a Jewish Family: Her Unfinished Autobiographical Account, translated by Josephine Koeppel (Washington DC: ICS Publications, 1986), 269-270. 181 Marianne Sawicki, Body, Text, and Science: The Literacy of Investigative Practices and the Phenomenology of Edith Stein (Boston: Kluwer, 1997), 9. 182 Theodor Lipps, “Empathy, Inner Imitation, and Sense-Feelings,” A Modern Book of Esthetics: An Anthology, 5th edition, trans. Max Schertel and Melvin Rader (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1979): 374, 377. 183 Dan Zahavi, “Empathy, Embodiment and Interpersonal Understanding: From Lipps to Schutz,” Inquiry 53:3 (14 May 2010): 288; See Theodor Lipps, “Das Wissen von fremden Ichen,” Psychologische Untersuchungen 1 (1907): 717-719.

Lovestone 56

extent of the ego, I am in its place. I am transported into it. I am, so far as my consciousness is concerned, entirely and wholly identical with it… The mere mental image no longer exists; my actual feeling has taken its place.184 Lipps clarifies that empathy results in a notion of the self that is the ‘higher- thinking’ self distinguishable from a ‘doing’ self that is concerned not with theorizing but practical actions: “…the self is an ideal one. This term is not clear. This ‘ideal’ self, too, is real. But it is not the real ‘practical’ self. It is the contemplative self, lingering and merged in the contemplation of the object…”185 To illustrate his point, Lipps gives the example of watching an acrobat’s performance. Lipps argues that the projecting, feeling-into of empathy with the acrobat necessarily demands the leaving-behind of the observer’s embodiment in order to achieve a different, higher objective experience of the acrobat:

…I become progressively less aware of muscular tensions or of sense- feelings in general the more I surrender in contemplation to the esthetic object. All such preoccupations disappear entirely from my consciousness. I am completely and wholly carried away from this sphere of my experience. And it is not only so, it must be so. Sense-feelings are objective experiences and these of necessity compete with other objective experiences.186 In other words, Lipps asserts different levels of empathetic, objective knowledge, where the highest level of empathy was the ability to leave behind one’s own embodied emplacement. Lipps further concludes that although his example of the acrobat primarily discusses empathy in terms of human movement, empathetic understanding is universally the same for any content. Lipps gives an example of an empathetic understanding of architecture, where the perceiver understands architectural space as he or she feels an inner expansion in their heart when entering a large hall.187 There are two implications of Lippsian empathy that Stein identified in order to correct and reduce and remove away per a phenomenological investigation of empathy. First, for Lipps, imitation has explanatory value based on the perceiver’s own feelings

184 Lipps, “Empathy, Inner Imitation, and Sense-Feelings,” 374-375. 185 Ibid., 375. 186 Ibid., 376. 187 Ibid., 377.

Lovestone 57

and bodily sensations that necessarily precede, and do not follow, the conscious recognition of feelings and sensations of another.188 And since Stein, who came after Lipps, was the first of phenomenologists to consider sexual difference,189 Lippsian empathy is not able to take into account the limits of bodily difference between men and women (not to mention age, class, race, or cultural heritage) for imitative understanding. Secondly, Lipps sees empathy as including but going beyond imitation as a projective transportation into the exact same spatial location of the other ego to achieve a kind of fusion.190 Therefore, because the grounding of empathy is entirely constituted by the observer’s sensations, it can be argued that Lippsian empathy fundamentally understands others as duplications of the self.191 Contra Lipps, Stein clarifies that empathy does not require directly experiencing or identifying with the content of another’s experiences in order to understand their experiences. In other words, empathetic understanding does not require the observer to believe, emotionally feel, or physically sense another person’s experiential content. That would be sympathy.192 Stein also argues that Lipps view of empathy as a kind of fusion is simply self-forgetfulness. Stein argues that how we seem to be able to ‘lose ourselves’ when deeply focused or engaged in an experience of something or someone is not to be confused as empathy: “What led Lipps astray in his description was the confusion of self- forgetfulness, through which I can surrender myself to any object.” 193 To clarify, Stein adds that self-forgetfulness is not actually in any way an actual loss of self.194 Stein argues that the self is never lost in someone else because there is not actually a union of the perceiver with the acrobat performer on stage. Rather, people

188 Zahavi, “Empathy, Embodiment and Interpersonal Understanding,” 290. 189 Antonio Calcagno, The Philosophy of Edith Stein (Pittsburg: Duquesne University Press, 2007), 18. 190 Dermot Moran, “The Problem of Empathy: Lipps, Scheler, Husserl and Stein,” Amor Amicitiae: On the Love that is Friendship. Essays in Medieval Thought and Beyond in Honor of the Rev. Professor James McEvoy, eds. Thomas A. Kelly and Phillip W. Rosemann (Dudley: Peeters, 2004): 277. 191 Zahavi, “Empathy, Embodiment and Interpersonal Understanding,” 295; see Lipps 1900, 418. 192 See Stein, “Empathy and Fellow Feeling” in Empathy, 14-15. 193 Stein, Empathy, 17. 194 Ibid., 17.

Lovestone 58

always fundamentally retain their separation and are, instead, postured toward one another: “I am not one with the acrobat but only ‘at’ him.”195 This is because being “one” with another or imitating another only gives the observer a reiterated sense of their own self in different ways and is not a way of understanding others’ experiences as another’s experience: “By the means indicated, I do not arrive at the phenomenon of foreign experience, but at an experience of my own that arouses in me the foreign gestures witnessed.”196 Through her critique of Lippsian empathy, Stein emphasizes that there is a difference between understanding another’s experiences and taking as one’s own the experiences of others or trying to make oneself into or merge into the other.197 After emphasizing the difference, Stein asserts, “Not through the feeling of oneness, but through empathizing, do we experience others.”198

Max Scheler. As Dan Zahavi points out, Scheler did not use any one single term for his theorizing how experiential access to others is possible, but both Husserl and Stein referred to his works as a theory of empathy.199 Scheler was one of the chief critics against Lipps’s philosophy of empathy. Against Lipps, Scheler argued that we can understand other’s feelings without imitation of the expression:

…the qualities (i.e., the character) of expressive phenomena and those of experiences exhibit connections of a unique kind, which do not depend at all on previous acquaintance with real experiences of our own, plus the other’s expressive phenomena, such that a tendency to imitate the movements of the gesture seen would first have to reproduce our own earlier experiences.200

Scheler argues that the ability to understand the expressions of animals is not predicated on imitating an animal’s behavior. The example he uses is that understanding a dog is happy does not require a person to have a wagging tail. Moreover, Scheler argues that the theory of imitation does not help to understand externalized expressions that

195 Stein, Empathy, 16. 196 Ibid., 23. 197 Ibid., 24. 198 Ibid., 18. 199 Zahavi, “Empathy, Embodiment and Interpersonal Understanding,” 289. 200 Max Scheler, The Nature of Sympathy, translated by Peter Health (London: Routledge, 1954), 10.

Lovestone 59

contradict what someone intends to communicate—for example how a person can appear happy but be internally miserable.201 For Scheler, empathy has a different fundamental basis than all other forms of knowing. Empathy is not rooted on observer nor the observed. Instead, Scheler argues that understanding others (i.e., empathy) is based on the observer’s access the universal stream of consciousness that precedes personal individuation: But according to our account we are committed to saying that [an] act of internal perception embraces not only his own mental processes, but has both the power and the right to take in the whole existing realm of minds—initially as a still unorganized stream of experiences. And just as we start by apprehending our present self against the background of our whole temporal experience, and do not manufacture it by a synthesis of our present self with earlier remembered states of itself, so too do we always apprehend our own self against the background of an ever-vaguer all-embracing consciousness in which our own existence and the experiences of everyone else are presented, in principle, as included together. It is not, therefore, the perception of other selves and their experiences, but only the particular content that stands out vividly at any time from this vast total content, the emergence of a self and of its experience form the great collective stream of universal consciousness, which is in fact conditioned by the bodily transactions which take place between us.202

In other words, the observer lives in the other, and all others, before they live in their individual self. This universal and pre-existing stream of consciousness is the basis of empathy and what makes empathetic understanding possible. Thus others are known by tapping into the stream of consciousness that existed before the self.203 And, at the same time, the self is discovered through a process of differentiation from the stream of all mental life.204 The implication of Scheler’s a priori and universal stream of consciousness raises the possibility of a consciousness that exists independent of any one personal individual, any “I.” 205

201 Max Scheler, The Nature of Sympathy, 11. 202 Ibid., 250. 203 Michael Gubser, The Far Reaches: Phenomenology, Ethics, and Social Renewal in Central Europe (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2014), 90. 204 Herbert Spiegelberg and Karl Schuhmann, The Phenomenological Movement: A Historical Introduction, (1960; 3rd Rev. and Enl. Ed. (The Hague: M. Nijhoff, 1982), 297. 205 Hughes, “Edith Stein’s Doctoral Thesis,” 474.

Lovestone 60

Stein focuses her critique of Schelerian empathy on the legitimacy of Scheler’s stream of consciousness. Stein argues that it is not possible to have a consciousness independent of an “I”: But such a stream of experience is an absolutely impossible notion because every experience is by nature an ‘I’s’ experience that cannot be separated phenomenally from the ‘I’ itself... Naturally, he cannot exhibit such an ‘I-less’ experience. Every case he brings up presupposes our own as well as the foreign ‘I’ and does not verify his theory at all.206

As well, the Schelerian notion of a foundation of self that is derived from pre- individualized current of consciousness necessarily does away with the requirement of a body for consciousness to exist. Thus, Scheler’s conception of person does not, at some level, necessarily require embodiment and that personal individuation as it is constituted in its materiality is something that is secondary or a fragmentary of something prior and something whole. In other words, Scheler presents a view of each person as fundamentally fragmented and not something or someone in and of itself. Stein rejected that a pre-embodied consciousness is what grounds our knowledge of other people and their experiences. She argues that empathy is not a feeling of pre- individuated oneness. Instead, Stein emphasized that a person is always necessarily embodied at an inalienable spatial location referred to as the “zero point of orientation.” In other words, a person does not leave, or step out of, their own particular embodied situation at any point of their existence. The body is integral to the structure of the person and consciousness, and Stein asserts a holistic view of each person whose individuated identity that is not dissoluble in universal consciousness. Embodiment is central to Stein’s phenomenology, and embodiment is also the particular component of Stein’s phenomenology where she and Husserl overlap in significant ways, in particular with the notion of the living body and the zero point of orientation. When it came to empathy, Stein reached very different conclusions that Husserl, but the two thinkers are similar to a certain extent in how they talked about the significance of the experience of one’s own body as a living body (Leib) distinguished from the physical body (Körper) as well as how they talked about the significance of the

206 Stein, Empathy, 28.

Lovestone 61

ever-present grounding of the living body as a whole as the ‘zero-point of orientation’ (Nullpunkt).

The “Living Body” (Leib) Husserl distinguished how the human body is perceived in two ways: the ‘living body’ (Leib) and the physical body, or “corpse” (Körper): “Thus, purely in terms of perception, physical body and living body [Körper und Leib] are essentially different; living body, that is, [understood] as the only one which is actually given [to me as such] in perception: my own living body.”207 The essential difference can be understood as the individual body that is lived in is experienced differently than being only a physical body that can only be known as an external thing: “How is my body [Leib] constituted within consciousness? I have my physical body [Körper] given once in acts of outer perception. But I we suppose it to be given to us in this manner alone, we have the strangest object.”208 To clarify, consider the possibility where the body that is lived-in momentarily becomes a Körper, or corpse, in immediate experience. Let’s say you wake up in the middle of the night having slept with your arm under your head in a way that cut off circulation. ‘You,’ meaning your living body (Leib), moves but your arm that is still ‘asleep’ does not move at all but remains lifeless until your Körper-arm, tingling, comes back to life. Many of us are familiar with the strangeness of this experience of an arm that has fallen asleep for a few moments can only be perceived as an external body part (a Körper). This is because, as Stein points out, the living body is always given as a whole, so it is strange when an arm that has fallen asleep causes us to see just the one part of our living body in a different way. 209 Why the experience an appendage that has temporarily lost normal circulation brings about two different ways of experiencing the body underwrites the

207 Edmund Husserl, The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology, trans. with introduction by David Carr (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1970), 107. 208 Stein, Empathy, 41. 209 Ibid., 42.

Lovestone 62

phenomenological assertion that the body can always be experienced in two different ways. The living body is given both as a sensed body (Leib) and a physical body of the outer world (Körper): “And in this doubled givenness it is experienced as the same.”210 Both Husserl and Stein assert the importance of understanding of the “double-givenness” of the body in terms of epistemology. The living body refers to the arena of our physical and sensing life, that, in the epistemological framing of the natural sciences, is the site of access for the world of empirical observation.

The Zero-point of Orientation (Nullpunkt) Stein adopted the concept of the zero point of orientation from Husserl that he introduces in Ideas II, which Stein collaborated on and helped to prepare for publication.211 Husserl defines the zero-point of orientation as “the absolute here.”212 It refers to how the living body is the “sole absolute point of reference” or the specific “geometric center” of the individual’s particular spatial orientation in the world, and everything else in the world is situated as a “there.” 213 In other words, the zero-point of orientation refers to the how the experience of the living body always has a grounded reference point.214Additionally, the zero-point of orientation defines the limits of perception per the physical body. For example, from the perspective orientation of my physical body, there is nothing I can do to fully perceive my own backside. In other words, because of the physical limitations of the body it is not possible to see the entirety of my external body at once. Moreover, as Stein emphasizes that the Nullpunkt refers to how a person occupies the space of a body that is experienced as a whole, as a unity of sensory experiences:

210 Stein, Empathy, 43. 211 See §32 in Edmund Husserl, Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy: Second Book Studies in the Phenomenology of Constitution, trans. Richard Rojcewicz and André Schuwer (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989), 134-144. For insight into how Heidegger took credit for Stein’s collaboration on Ideas and the lack of public recognition for her work with Husserl see Antonio Calcagno, Lived Experience from the Inside Out: Social and Political Philosophy in Edith Stein (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 2014). 212 Husserl, Ideas: Second Book, 135. 213 David Bell, Husserl (New York: Routledge, 1990), 222. 214 Calcagno, Lived Experience, 73.

Lovestone 63

But I relate the parts of my living body, together with everything spatial outside of it, to a ‘zero point of orientation’ which my living body surrounds. This zero point is not to be geometrically localized at one point in my physical body; nor is it the same for all data. It is localized in the head for visual data and in mid-body for tactile data. Thus, whatever refers to the ‘I’ has no distance from the zero point, and all that is given at a distance from the zero point is also given at a distance from the ‘I.’215

My experience with the space of my body informs how I locate types of sensation in terms of bodily location. As well, the location of “me” in relation to my own body is radically different that the relation of objects in the world to my body: However, this distance of bodily parts from me is fundamentally different from the distance of other things from each other and from me…a thing can approach me, its distance from me can decrease, and it can contact not me, but my physical body. Then the distance from my physical body, but not from me, becomes zero. 216

In other words, the phenomenological concept of Nullpunkt is used to explain spatial reference point for person, which is located at both more and less than the physical body. Moreover, Husserl asserted that the body, being both a live body (Leib) and a physical body (Körper), is the site of access of two kinds of coherences respective to the natural sciences and cultural sciences.217 As the point of access for both, the body therein also constitutes the spatial site of the unified foundation for the natural sciences and humanities. Nullpunkt of the Leib as the site of access to others’ experiences is where the point of agreement between Husserl and Stein ends. When it came to empathy and, these two thinkers reached radically different assertions about how it is we obtain knowledge of other’s experiences.

215 Stein, Empathy, 43. 216 Ibid., 43. 217 Sawicki, Body, Text, and Science, 62-63; Edmund Husserl, “Philosophy as a Rigorous Science,” in Edmund Husserl, Phenomenology and the Crisis of Philosophy, translated by Q. Lauer (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 71-147.

Lovestone 64

Husserlian Empathy Contra Stein, Husserl asserts that the reality of others is constituted by the individual, transcendental i. In his 1913 Ideas I, Husserl asserts that we do not have direct, or ‘originary,’ experience of other people: “…we have originary experience of ourself and of our states of consciousness in so-called internal or self-perception; not, however, of others and of their mental processes in ‘empathy.’”218 In other words, we never see beyond our own self; knowledge of our self is what fundamentally constitutes all knowledge of others. As well, Husserl asserts that others are physically present but that the subjectivity of the other is inaccessible: …in fact we generally say, in the case of experiencing a man: the other is himself there before us ‘in person’. On the other hand, this being there in person does not keeps [sic] us from admitting forthwith that, properly speaking, neither the other Ego himself, nor his subjective processes or his appearances themselves, nor anything else belonging to his own essence, becomes given in our experience originally.219 For Husserl, the particularity of each person is not simply given in immediate, everyday lived experience. Rather, access to others’ subjectivity and the other’s particular point of orientation to the world (Nullpunkt) is brought about through the epoché. The point of access that results from the epoché is a depersonalized, universal ego that can occupy any other individual’s embodied space. Husserl explains it as follows: By phenomenological epoché I reduce my natural human Ego and my psychic life—the realm of my psychological self-experience—to my transcendental-phenomenological Ego, the realm of transcendental- phenomenological self-experience. The Objective world, the world that exists for me, that always has and always will exist for me, the only world that ever can exist for me—this world, with all its Objects, I said, derives its whole sense and its existential status, which it has for me, from me myself, from me as the transcendental Ego, the Ego who comes to the fore only with transcendental-phenomenological epoché.220

218 Edmund Husserl, Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy: First Book General Introduction to a Pure Phenomenology, translated by F. Kersten (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1982), 6. 219 Edmund Husserl, Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to Phenomenology, translated by Dorion Cairns. 7th edition (Boston: The Hague, 1982), 109. 220 Ibid., 26.

Lovestone 65

And from this depersonalized position of the transcendental ego, perception of others is apperceptive, meaning impersonal and automatic. Where Lipps argued knowledge of others is given in imitation, Husserl argued knowledge of others is given by apperception.221 Apperception is the philosophical concept that explains how different aspects of an object are perceived automatically even if they are not directly seen. Take, for example, how a cube is perceived. All sides of a cube cannot be perceived at the same time. So when only one side of a cube is perceived it is perceived as a cube apperceptively—because even if I actually only see one of its sides, as I have held a cube and turned it around to see all of its sides I achieve a full perception of it as a cube that subsequently informs my automatic perception of the cube as a whole. In other words, apperception explains how it is possible that we see things as wholes even if we cannot wholly see something in one perceptual glance. Apperception explains why it not necessary to see all the sides of a cube in order to recognize one as such. Likewise, Husserl asserted that other embodied individuals are apperceived as a body possessing an alter ego because the experience of ourselves is as an embodied ego—this apperceptive grasp of other egos is what Husserl refers to as a pairing or coupling act. Pairing and coupling results in the observer understanding another as if in the other’s body. … this natural body belonging to my sphere appresents the other Ego, by virtue of the pairing association with my bodily organism, and with my Ego governing in my organism, within my primordially [what is original to me] constituted Nature. It is the same Nature, but in the mode of appearance: ‘as if I were standing over there, where the Other’s body is’. The body is the same, given to me as the body there, and to him as the body here, the central body. Furthermore, ‘my’ whole Nature is the same as the Other’s.222

In other words, another individual’s body is perceived as a Leib, a living body with a consciousness and ego and just not a mere physical body, because I experience my own body as a Leib. But this perception of another as a living body is based not on the other but on my experience of my own Leib as if it were to occupy an other’s bodily

221 Spiegelberg, The Phenomenological Movement, 140. 222 Husserl, Cartesian Meditations, 123.

Lovestone 66

space.223 Put another way, Husserl regarded bodies as interchangeable.224Moreover, Husserl argued that the perceiver constitutes all others, which Husserl believed he had fully clarified: “After these clarifications it is no longer an enigma how I can constitute in myself another Ego…”225 However, as is shown, the transcendental ego is a radically singular viewpoint in content and, is thus solipsistic—applying Husserl’s epoché cancels out the existence of others as external entities, and therefore cancels out their reality.226 But Husserl’s phenomenology is not a ‘hard’ solipsism. Meaning, it is possible for Husserl to assert that there is an external world because the epoché is predicated on the availability of other bodies but does not require the existence of other consciousnesses or living bodies, since the singular transcendental i is what constitutes them all. Husserl’s epoché is also qualified as the source of objective-scientific knowledge through its violent displacement of others’ orientation on the world (Nullpunkt). Husserl argued that the epoché was the process of dislocating other’s embodied viewpoints and occupying them so that in combining the viewpoints one could depersonalize knowledge. Thus, Husserl restricted the content of empathy to what could be experienced by any individual at all and emphasized that understanding is impersonal—that the particular individual observer is irrelevant.227 As Sawicki puts it: “Stated another way, the law merely declares: the world must and does appear to me just as it would appear to anyone else who might stand where I stand; for my own unique individuality is irrelevant to my observations.”228 Husserl argued that an observer could displace another person’s center of sensory orientation (Nullpunkt) to occupy their viewpoint and that it would be identical regardless of who occupies that center. By doing so, Husserl established that empathy accomplished by the transcendental ego is the foundation of what he referred to as an

223 Bell, Husserl, 222. 224 Sawicki, Body, Text, and Science, 112. 225 Husserl, Cartesian Meditations, 126. 226Hughes, “Edith Stein’s Doctoral Thesis,” 461. 227 Sawicki, Body, Text, and Science, 97. 228 Ibid., 66.

Lovestone 67

‘intersubjective Objectivity’ that qualified knowledge in the natural sciences and the humanities as scientific.229

Steinian Empathy The way that other individuals are perceived, and whether or not they are replaceable, is radically different for Stein. Stein never assented to Husserl’s epoché, which rules out, or brackets, the existence of others: “The world in which we live is not only a world of physical bodies but also of experiencing subjects external to us, of whose experiences we know. This knowledge is not indisputable.”230 Stein asserts that the existence of others and knowing other’s perceptions of my living body is how the particular boundaries for my location of my living body (my own zero point of orientation) are possible for me in the first place. Stein points out that the full perceptual access of my own breaks off at certain points, such as being able to view the back of me. Even if I were to try perceiving the back of me, Stein says, “It would withhold its rear side with more stubbornness than the moon….”231 This points to the fact that the view of our own living body is limited and cannot be fully constituted independently. Thus, the viewpoint of others is needed to fully constitute our own living body, to trace all the curves and edges of its spatiality:

From the viewpoint of [my] zero point of orientation gained in empathy, I must no longer consider my own zero point as the zero point, but as a spatial point among many. By this means, and only by this means, I learn to see my living body as a physical body like others… I again interpret this [my] physical body as a living body, and so it is that I first am given to myself as a psycho-physical individual in the full sense.232 Stein shows how empathy is logically prior to the epoché, and not that the epoché asserts reality through the act of empathy.233 Stein shows how Husserl took for granted the givenness of the individual zero point of orientation by asserting that empathy with

229 Husserl, Ideas: Second Book, 178; and §47, 178-180. 230 Stein, Empathy, 5. 231 Ibid., 41. 232 Ibid., 63. The term ‘psycho-physical’ here is a common term in contemporary psychology. But in Stein’s phenomenology this terms is a bit different. By ‘psycho- physical’ Stein means interrelationship of physical stimulation and mental life. 233 Sawicki, Body, Text, and Science, 127.

Lovestone 68

others is required for one to clarify one’s own Nullpunkt. In other words, there is no complete individuality that can sustain a phenomenological reduction that does not first require empathy. Steinian empathy is also significantly different from Husserlian empathy in that she directly opposes his assertion that the ego of another’s body can be displaced. For Stein, the perception of another’s central viewpoint of the world through empathy (another ‘zero point of orientation’ that is original to me, or “primordial”) is not a moment of conquest or domination but an acceptance of another center of the world: It is not that I shift my zero point to this place, for I retain my ‘primordial’ zero point and my ‘primordial’ orientation while I am empathetically, non- primordially obtaining the other one. On the other hand, neither do I obtain a fantasized orientation nor a fantasized image of the spatial world. But this orientation, as well as the empathized sensations, is con- primordial, because the living body to which it refers is perceived as a physical body at the same time and because it is given primordially to the other ‘I,’ even though non-primordially to me.234

Empathy is to see with another person and to recognize the other person as more than just another spatial viewpoint. As well, the particularities of the other’s viewpoint and the experience given at that viewpoint will never be originally mine. I do not assume that my understanding of experience gained in empathy is the only one, but one in addition to, and in connection with, the original experience grounded in another. In other words, when Stein asserts that the content of empathy—other people’s experiences—is “non-primordial” she means that the content of their experiences remains originally theirs and will never fully, or only, be mine; it is mine-with-them. According to this criterion, the Husserlian transcendental ego that ‘has’ others experiences as its own fails to qualify as empathy. 235 The content of empathy for Stein always retains the reference to its original source and is never plagiarized, or taken as one’s own. For Stein, the assertion of reality depends on both the contents of my own “primordial” experiences (meaning, my own first-hand experiences) as well as the experiential contents of others known through empathy, and both must retain their original citations:

234 Stein, Empathy, 61-62. 235 Sawicki, Body, Text, and Science, 100.

Lovestone 69

And not only is it differently presented depending on the momentary standpoint, but also depending on the nature of the observer. This makes the appearance of the world dependent on the individual consciousness, but the appearing world--which is the same, however and to whomever it appears--is made independent of consciousness. Were I imprisoned within the boundaries of my individuality, I could not go beyond ‘the world as it appears to me.’236 In other words, the external world cannot be reduced to any one individual experience but is asserted through the knowledge of both the observer and the observed. This chapter began by citing the common definition of empathy, and it will now end by articulating how Stein would define empathy. The definition of empathy for Stein is that empathy is an act that provides an original experience of the content of another’s experiences: “So now to empathy itself. Here, too, we are dealing with an act which is primordial as present experience though non-primordial in content.”237 Steinian empathy is more than perceiving others; it is grasping the thoughts and feelings of others: “This [empathy] is how human beings comprehend the psychic life of their fellows.”238 As was shown in this chapter, the differences between Husserl and Stein are most evident when it comes to the nature of the perceiver and how they affect those they perceive. For Husserl, the validity of the world and the foundation of the sciences is achieved as a result of an autonomous and disembodied perceiver that can displace others to enjoy their viewpoints for himself. Stein radically decenters this viewpoint and argues that that external reality is achieved as a result of a dependant perceiver who views with others who both retain their own particularity. Stein asserts that reality, as Sawicki puts it, is a reality where “I consent to live in a world with more than one center—and am the richer for it.”239 For Stein, the grounding of the sciences is rooted in the interrelational complexity of lived experiences with others as both individuals and as collectives. 240 Stein’s investigation of empathy in her dissertation On the Problem of Empathy (1917) opened to a robust phenomenological investigation that she pursued further in the Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities (1922) where she outlines the structuration

236 Stein, Empathy, 64. 237 Ibid., 10. 238 Ibid., 11. 239 Sawicki, Body, Text, and Science, 146. 240 Calcagno, Lived Experience, 13.

Lovestone 70

of the person whose individual personal distinctiveness is brought about by the interplay of physical causality, individual experiential history, personality predisposition, and relationships with others. As Stein continues her investigation of these elements, Stein will continue to fill out the picture of what constitutes the unified foundation of the sciences not as founded not on an individualistic, singular view of reality but a view of reality that has multiple centers, each of which is occupied by a person that is irreducibly and irreplaceably unique. Unlike Husserl, phenomenology itself as a scientific viewpoint epitomized in the epoché does not constitute the foundation of the objective sciences. Rather, Stein’s phenomenological investigation of empathy discovered that empathy is the act that brings about the foundation of the sciences: each person as the unique irreplaceable center of orientation to the world as the basis of reality. Unlike Husserl, the unifying foundation of the sciences for Stein is not phenomenology per se but the unfolded person.241

241 Calcagno, Lived Experience, 14.

Lovestone 71

Chapter Four Key Concepts: Person, Community, Lifepower, and Values

As Stein satisfies the Husserlian project of asserting the foundation of science not as a singular transcendental i but a multiplicity of irreplaceable viewpoints on the world, something else is opened up by her phenomenology, which is the focus of this chapter and the next. What I see as most significant in Stein in contradistinction to Husserl is that she asserts that each person is a unique and irreplaceable entity and that that is the foundation of the sciences. But what makes her different from Husserl at the same time opens up questions about how it is that persons develop as such, each as a unique and irreplaceable experiential point of access on the world. Stein's phenomenology of person is that each person develops out of what she identifies as their core—what is fundamentally given in the depths of each of us to be that must unfold, or develop, to grounds assertions about culture and the realities we claim to know. Stein puts forward a tough and technical engagement with both the embodied and relational pieces at play in her development view of person, what I refer to in short as the unfolded person. The focus of this chapter is explaining the different physical and relational aspects that Stein identifies are operational in the unfolding of each person as who they are at their core. What Stein captures in her explanations of personhood is how once unfolding starts it is not a bounded process, but it is unpredictable. Thus, in this chapter I begin the transition to a much larger topic than that strictly that of science and, arguably, science is no longer the most interesting question. Science becomes one piece of a much broader and more important constellation that Stein provides in her phenomenology. As a result of her phenomenological investigation of empathy, Stein uncovers an understanding of the structure of human beings and identifies what elements are at play in the development of each individual as a unique person.242 This chapter explains each of

242 Marianne Sawicki, “Personal Connections: The Phenomenology of Edith Stein,” in Yearbook of the Irish Philosophical Society (Maynooth: Irish Philosophcial Society: 2004): 151.

Lovestone 72

the elements that Stein identifies: person, community, lifepower, and values.243 Each of these elements has a distinct role in the trajectory of personal development, and the next chapter outlines the different developmental possibilities. The difficulties of isolating the elemental concepts set out in this chapter is that none of these elements function in isolation but are always mutually constituting, and constituted by, one another as part of a whole. This is what is so powerful about Stein’s perspective as a framework that can come to terms with humanity’s complexity. Stein does the work of seeing both the individual and humanity as they function together and offers insights into how to grasp the ways in which they co-constitute each other. This chapter focuses on understanding each element at play that Stein identifies as isolated elements, and the next chapter focuses on the larger functionary, orchestrating whole brought about in the interplay of these elements. Perhaps to understand how I see these chapters working together is to imagine what it is like to attend an orchestra. Across the stage are groupings of different kinds of instruments: strings, brass, bass, percussion, and woodwind. An orchestra is a massively complex entity. There is movement and sound of different pitch and texture, volume, and size—flittering fingers tap on small metal-coined keys that move in tandem with swaying arms that sweep bows across strings. Sitting in the audience, I can zoom in to any one particular instrument to discern and isolate it against the background of the whole. I zoom in on the cello. The cellist contours his body around his instrument, is dwarfed by the cello’s size as it lies against him. Instrument and man sway together producing deep, long, full, expanding notes. At the same time the cello’s sound is punctated by the pings of keys, and my eyes move to the pianist. Straight-postured and subjugating, the pianist’s hands move lightly across the array of keys as they press the

243 Even though Stein’s adopts key elements of her concepts draws from the works of many of her contemporaries and the influence of Scheler and Husserl are very evident, her philosophy of community and person is original to her. See Dermot Moran, “The Problem of Empathy: Lipps, Scheler, Husserl and Stein,” Amor Amicitiae: On the Love that is Friendship. Essays in Medieval Thought and Beyond in Honor of the Rev. Professor James McEvoy. Eds. Thomas A. Kelly and Phillip W. Rosemann (Dudley: Peeters, 2004), 304. The extent to which Stein drew from the work of her contemporaries will be relegated to the footnotes from here on out in order to make coming to terms with her thought more direct and clear.

Lovestone 73

driving melody onward. As the cello expands, reaches out in length and depth, it is kept centered by the pinpoint accuracy of the piano’s organizing rhythm sounded in melody steps. The cello alone would be a dreadfully dark and lonely sound, and a pinging piano would be too superficially happy and careless with its centralizing power. At the same time, briefly isolating them lets me see how powerful it is when they play together—how at the same time as being distinct to one another they constitute the other’s distinctiveness. In other words, I see how each instrument is both more and less than an orchestra. This chapter focuses in on each “instrument” in order to more fully appreciate and understand the explanation of the “orchestra” in the next chapter. The first “instrument” that we bring into focus is person. Stein’s concept of person is complex. Person is the topmost layer of what she asserts is the four-part structure of human beings. Additionally, person is constituted in two parts: partly by the soul and partly by the core.

Person as the Topmost Layer in the Structure of Human Beings Stein’s view of each human being is as a composite of four distinguishable but mutually informing and interconnected layers.244 Person refers to what is unique about each individual that comprises the topmost structural layer. The next two layers are coupled together: mental intelligence and the senses, and these two layers constitute the interface of the individual with the external world. This is at the same time the layer that constitutes the living body (Leib) that was explained in the previous chapter. The bottommost layer is the physical layer, or what was referred to in the previous chapter as the Körper—the physiological processes of the body that make material life possible but are not experiential.

244 Stein found in Scheler inspiration for the four-level structure out of which personal individualization emerges, but the outline of her view of the layered structure of human beings detailed here is particular to her; See Marianne Sawicki, Body, Text, and Science: The Literacy of Investigative Practices and the Phenomenology of Edith Stein (Boston: Kluwer, 1997), 93.

Lovestone 74

Stein scholar Marianne Sawicki describes Stein’s human being structure metaphorically as a capital I with serifs.245 The Körper, or physical body, is the base of the capital I and is the point of access to the spatial, physical world. As a body acts on the physical world, the world acts on the body resulting in the effects that reach into the matrix of sentient and mental life (i.e., the living body, or Leib), at which point the physical world becomes intelligible. The sensing and mental life co-constitute the column of the capital I, and this column is the realm of what is communicable about the physical world and social life. At the top of the serif I is the layer of person as an ensouled and fundamentally unique being. By person Stein means something that is distinct, what it is about each individual that is more than physical and mental life: “A psycho-physical individual, presenting itself as a unity of a material body and such a psyche, can’t be called a person in the strict sense…”246 As the physical body (Körper) is the point of access to the object world, the layer of person is the point of access to the world of values, the world of relationships, the world of meaning and meaning-making. But both realms of physicality and meaning are not accessed directly. Rather, the effect of the contact with those realms reach into the middle layers of intellect and sensation. As a person engages in meaning-making and the world of values and is a physical body in the world, this results in effects that reach into the matrix of sentient and mental life, at which point these effects become intelligible. As Sawicki describes it: “My only direct access to these opaque realms—matter, and value—is the matter that I am, my body, and the value that I am, my person.”247 In other words, the column of the capital I is the interface of sensations (or sentience) and mentality, where the topmost and bottommost layers, the serifs of the capital I (the personal and the physical), remain mysteries in and of themselves and are not directly accessible to knowledge. For example, someone else cannot access my

245 Marianne Sawicki, “Personal Connections,” 154-155. The description of the four- layered person is a summary of Sawicki’s description in this article. 246 Edith Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, trans. M.C. Baseheart and M. Sawicki (Washington, DC: ICS Publications, 2000), 200. 247 Sawicki, “Personal Connections,” 157.

Lovestone 75

physical pain and someone else cannot know my joy or sadness exactly as I do.248 What is shared with others, what is accessible for ourselves and others to perceive and understand, is what enters into in the column of the I, what enters the sentience-intellect matrix. The effects that reach into the column of the I constitute the discernable reality that each of us experience. Thus, Stein shows how the permeability of the living body from the physical world and social life informs sensing and thinking life. However, what the physical body is (Körper) and the physical objects of the world are not directly accessed as such but are accessed in the column of the I—the realm of sentient-thinking. Additionally, the communicability of the world of meaning, or the world of values and social life, as it is directly experienced is also limited because the level of person ultimately remains just as much a mystery as the object world: the person cannot be accessed as such. Stein asserts that there is an impenetrable barrier that is encountered at what is ownmost and deepest about our own self and what is ownmost and deepest of others.249 This is, at the same time, the limitation of empathy. In the previous chapter we recall how the zero-point of orientation of another individual cannot be displaced by the Husserlian transcendental i. This is because persons as such are not directly accessible in the ways that displacement presupposes. There is more to this “instrument” than its location as the topmost layer of the human structure. Just as a cello is both a wooden body and strings, so too person is made up of two main parts: the soul and the core.

Person as Partly the Soul (Seele). The concept of soul in Stein does not have the typical religious associations accorded to it. Rather the soul is thought of as a functionary component of what constitutes person. Stein contrasts the function of the soul with the function of the mind to argue that, unlike the mind, the soul not only confronts

248 For an excellent explication of the incommunicability of pain and the larger consequences of the limits of communication, see the introduction in Elaine Scarry, The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), 3-23. 249 See Sawicki, Body, Text, and Science, 103.

Lovestone 76

the world but takes the world in: “With the mind we simply take on the world, but your soul takes up the world into itself.”250 In the soul, the contents of experience are integrated into the existing unity that is comprised as the soul: “At any given time, what is being received is not merely being picked up, but is also being assimilated to what you already possess.”251 Thus, Stein describes the soul as a sort of container and unifyer of all of an individual’s life experiences.252 Additionally, as what unifies experience, the soul is that which marks all of my experiences as ‘mine,’ what makes each of my lived experiences my very own: “But, as we already saw in examining inner perception, among our experiences there is one basic experience given to us which, together with its persistent attributes, becomes apparent in our experiences as the identical “bearer” of them. This is the substantial soul.”253 What’s more, the experiential contents taken into the soul have a shaping effect on the soul itself. In other words, the quality of the soul depends on the type of experiences gathered in the course of living. Different capacities and qualities are developed in the soul that, in turn shapes the person. Different life experiences become a part of the substance of a person as experiences are integrated into the structure of the person via the function of the soul. Thus, it is the soul that offers the unifying center of all a person’s experiences, or as Stein puts it: “Having a soul means carrying your being’s center of gravity inside of yourself.”254 Thus, the soul as a unifier of experience is, at the same time, a point of orientation of being: “While those mental essences are carried by the mind of the sphere to which they belong, the human being lives out of his soul, which is the center of his being.”255 Moreover, life experiences and the soul are reflexively constitutional:

250 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 230. 251 Ibid., 109. 252 Antonio Calcagno, Lived Experience from the Inside Out: Social and Political Philosophy in Edith Stein (Pittsburgh: Duquesne, 2014), 55. 253 Edith Stein, On the Problem of Empathy, 3rd Edition, trans. W. Stein (Washington, DC: ICS Publications, 1988), 40. 254 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 275. 255 Ibid., 228.

Lovestone 77

This substantial unity is ‘my’ soul when the experiences in which it is apparent are ‘my’ experiences or acts in which my pure ‘I’ lives. The peculiar structure of psychic unity depends on the peculiar content of the stream of experiences [experiences are continuously successive]; and, conversely, (as we must say after the soul has been constituted for us) the content of the stream of experience depends on the structure of the soul.”256

In other words, as life experiences are taken into the soul as a constituent part of person, at the same time experiential content is formative of the soul in ways that modify the soul’s capacity, the ability to take in the content of further experiences. For Stein, mental life does not have an affect on the shape of the soul. Rather, ensouled experiences do. Finally, Stein asserts that the quality of the soul is not revealed in mental life. Rather, affective life is what gives insight into the soul: Thought doesn’t give away anything of the purity and deepness of your soul—just the motives that prompt it, as with all affective life. How you pick up values and how you behave toward them, how you enjoy things, how you make yourself happy, how you grieve and how you suffer: that all depends on the quality of the soul.257

In other words, as experiences are stored in the soul, the soul is shaped by those experiences which, in turn, affects an individual’s affective life—how they engage in experiences. Yet person is not only shaped or determined by the quality and content of the soul. Rather, a more fundamental aspect plays a determining role in the development of person: the core.

Person as Partly the Core (Kern). Stein identifies that the core (in German Kern, or kernel, root) of a person is the source of what makes a person unique:258 “The human personality considered as a whole shows itself to us as a unity of qualitative distinctiveness that is fashioned out of a core, a formative root.”259 Core is the source of the radical individuality of each person as such—the basis for which Stein asserts that

256 Stein, Empathy, 40. 257 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 228. 258 Mary Catherine Baseheart, Person in the World: Introduction to the Philosophy of Edith Stein (Dordrecht: Springer, 2010), 53. 259 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 238.

Lovestone 78

persons are irreplaceable. What Stein means by core is the “original personal predisposition” of each person,260 their inherent unique personality, the factor that is responsible for how no two people will become exactly the same. On the concept of core rests Stein’s rejection of the psychology of her time. That is, Stein attributes to core as what fundamentally shapes a person’s unique development over and against their history or mental-somatic life: Furthermore, we know that the sentient state of a person at any given time does not depend only upon the ‘history’ of her life and the present ‘circumstances.’ Rather her entire life is decided by the ‘core personality,’ by that invariable repertoire of being that is not a result of development but, on the contrary, prescribes how the development proceeds. You have to acknowledge this core even when you expect to find a sentient state.261

Stein would reject current practices of psychology that explain human actions in terms of the influences of their environment, such as behaviorism, or personal history, such as psychoanalysis, or physiological factors, such as psychopharmacology.262 For Stein, psychologies that work only in a causal framework discount from the beginning the personal aspects of human experience that are so important to Stein’s phenomenology. Stein also notes that out of the person the core emerges is dispositional life and ensouled experiences with its own particular affectivity. In this way we can observe of ourselves and others how the core is what grounds each human life’s distinctiveness. The static qualities and the original character predisposition both are essential for the formation of affective and dispositional life. This life flows out of the depths of your soul and bears on itself the trademark of its own peculiarity. Furthermore, it gives evidence of a susceptibility that doesn’t belong to your soul’s qualities themselves, but is rooted in the personal core out of which even your soul takes shape.263

Stein asserts that every individual in terms of affective presentation and susceptibilities to developing particular qualities is profoundly unique and in-set by their core. It is the core that determines the shape of the body and soul, even as the body and

260 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 116. 261 Ibid., 93. 262 Marianne Sawicki, introduction to Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, xvii-xviii. 263 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 237.

Lovestone 79

soul are influenced by external reality. In fact, according to Stein, while the soul is subject to change, the deepest part of the individual core always remains as such and is the only constant. To explain, Stein argues that the Roman dictator Julius Caesar would still be Caesar even if he were born, instead, in her own time and place. We find not only that the categorical structure of the soul as soul must be retained, but also within its individual form we strike an unchanged level kernel, the personal structure. I can think of Caesar in a village instead of in Rome and can think of him transferred into the twentieth century. Certainly, his historically settled individuality would then go through some changes, but just as surely he would remain Caesar. The personal structure marks off a range of possibilities of variation within which the person’s real distinctiveness can be developed ‘ever according to circumstances.’264

Thus, Stein argues for a concept of development where a person as such is not totally determined by life experiences. Moreover, Stein asserts that a person’s character traits or the quality of the soul that are grounded in the core defy the intervention of training. In other words, an individual may be trained from childhood to treat people in a harsh or aggressive manner but still develop into the kind and gentle person that was always in them to be. That contrast between being trained and being untrained doesn’t hold at all for your soul and its qualities. For purity, kindness, gentility, there are no external circumstances that could enhance or inhibit their development. External circumstances can provide ‘opportunity’ for good or bad actions and thus for the training of corresponding dispositional properties. ‘Virtues’ and ‘vices’ can be acquired under the influence of a good or bad ‘example.’ But the inner purity of your soul isn’t touched by that. It can still come to light in the manner in which you do something reprehensible, just as on the other hand ‘praiseworthy’ deeds don’t rule out an inner depravity and can bear its stigma.265

For Stein, the core and the soul together constitute individual distinctiveness that defines person. And it is person, the topmost layer of the structure of the human individual, that is the access point to the world of meaning and values. Person, then,

264 Stein, Empathy, 110. 265 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 232.

Lovestone 80

predispositioned by a distinct core with a soul that retains and unifies lived experiences, is the point of access to the world of values. And it is the world of values that Stein identifies as the world of meaning-making, which is the province of the humanities: “Now on to the significance of values for the humanities. Without a doubt, they are of the greatest importance for defining the spheres of reality.”266 Thus, we can see that Stein asserts the ability of those in the humanities to grasp the contents specific to the humanities (values) rests on the person, or the core, of the scholar. The importance of values will be discussed in the final section of this chapter. Yet, at the same time, persons as such does not unfold on its own but requires what Stein describes as particularly open relationships lived in solidarity. Now we zoom back out from the “instrument” of person and let our eyes drift across the stage to the zero in on another vital piece of the orchestra: community.

Community As we will see in more detail in the next chapter, the unfolding of each person’s core does not occur in relational isolation. Community is required for a distinct individual to unfold out of what is always in them to be. Stein’s concept of community is just as nuanced as her concept of person. And similar to the way that Stein distinguishes four layers that are co-constitutional in the structure of individual human beings, Stein also identifies different types of interpersonal ways of relating that are not mutually exclusive. As we will see, for Stein community identifies a particular mode of social life based on how much of the total structure, especially the core and soul, of the person is engaged. But because community is fundamental to the development of personhood, there is no form of social life that cannot become the site of community formation because the forms that interpersonal relationships take is unpredictable. In other words, all forms of social life have the potential to become community. The kinds of social organizations that Stein identifies are: types, the mass, association, and community.

266 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 313.

Lovestone 81

Similar to the bottom serif of the person is the physical body, Stein outlines a common experiential structure that is the basis of all human relationships that result in ‘typical types’ of people, or basic social groupings. ..any function of thought or knowledge is enacted on the basis of a ‘logical normality’ that unites all knowing subjects, and all activations of reason in general, in active potential mutuality with all rational essence. Wider circles of unity are marked out by the common orientation to this or that particular field of being or research, or by susceptibility for this or that realm of value…. Anyone belonging to such a union, whether narrow or broad, is a representative of a determinate type that makes up the unity of this union; and this type is one constituent of the individual personality. It’s characteristic for a human being that he’s a typical scholar, the type of hero, or something like that.267

For Stein, she establishes this structure to specify how on the basis of being human basic connection with any other human is a possibility. In other words, there are general experiential thinking-sensing structures that are “normal” for humans that categorize them into ‘types.’ For example, from the beginning of my scholarly career I have noticed that I have valued in particular the voices of those typically unheard or discriminated against. As a result, much of what I end up doing is to empower those voices to be heard. Scholarship that has similar values makes the most rational sense to me in terms of research content, language and constructs, and methodological orientation. In reading that ‘type’ of scholarship I am united into a larger conversation of a particular research field and ‘typical’ way of being a scholar. Stein’s concept of types is generalized as a categorical qualification for capturing larger and more loosely associated social groupings beyond culture and physical characteristics that do not necessarily require interpersonal embodied encounters. As well, a person can identify with many social types. Additionally, social types are the basis of behavioral expectations and norms, but the possibilities of living into the behavioral expectations associated with broader social types can contribute to an inner tension at the level of the individual: These typical manners of behavior aren’t ‘masks’ that the individual takes up and under which the individual conceals his ‘true face’ (although that can be the case, too). Rather, the individual renders himself in the ‘social

267 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 239.

Lovestone 82

perspective’ which is required by the ‘social slant’ of the moment, and which at each moment corresponds to one or another of his essential traits. For in every single case, the typical behavior and the type itself receive their individual imprint from the persons who enter into them. Conflicts result when either (as we were considering just now) the distinctiveness of a person disagrees with the type that she’s representing, or she unites in herself various types that are incompatible with one another, or rather, types requiring manners of behavior that are incompatible with one another as to their sense.268

Each person has a matrix of personal values that results in their identification with various types. However, a person is not reducible to, or fully constituted by, any one type that they represent. Even though at a general level different types may prescribe mutually exclusive behavioral expectations for how certain values are lived out, at the level of the individual person opposing social values may not necessarily be contradictory. The second kind of social organization that Stein identifies is the mass. The mass is a particular way of distinguishing broad social classes that lack any sense of a unity of the inward life of each individual. For the mass, individuals lack an orientation to each other as persons. There is no sense of mutuality, and there is no backdrop of common understanding. Stein clarifies that the mass in her sense is different from the common colloquial conception of ‘the masses’ as groups that enact social revolutions:

‘Mass’ here is of course not taken in the sense in which political theorists speak of the will or the excitement of the masses. The broad social classes that are designated as masses there possess in a high degree that inner unity whose absence is characteristic for the mass in our sense.269

What Stein means by mass is more neutral. What Stein refers to as mass is simply means the physical ‘togetherness’ of individuals. She emphasizes the practical-orientation as a distinguishing characteristic of the mass, where tactile life dominates over mental life and, further, the life of the person as a distinct individual is not engaged.270 What Stein means by mass, then, means the sense of absolute anonymity of individual co-existence.

268 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 293. 269 Ibid., 242. 270 Ibid., 243-255.

Lovestone 83

The third kind of social organization that Stein identifies is association. Unlike the mass, individuals in association share a common purpose or goal and primarily interrelate based on function. Associational relationships are most directly evident as a result of institutions—jobs, clubs, schools, churches, etc., wherein functionary roles are created, such as supervisor, student, assistant, technician, etc. Thus, individuals relate to one another primarily in a functional way: “The life of the association subsists in the functionality required of its members by its purposes.”271 These roles or employment positions originate according to the demands of the goal and not the person of individuals, and relationships between people are more mechanized than, say, familial bonding. Stein notes that the overall development of association is more akin to a machine than a living organism:272 “…under ‘association’ is understood a union that is rational and mechanical.”273 However, type and association are not mutually exclusive social organizations, so associations are not purely mechanical or routinized. Individuals carry out functionary roles in a ‘typical’ way that results in a variation of the possibilities of how employment or other types of associational positions are carried out: … there’s a general mode [Form] to which she adapts herself: precisely that which we call ‘type’—in a first sense—for example, the type ‘friend’ or ‘foe,’ ‘boss’ and ‘laborer,’ ‘comrade’ and the like. The modal functions and organs of an association belong to this kind of type, too. They don’t also belong to the essential substance of the persons (like common character traits); rather, they’re just modes that are occupied by the persons (temporarily or permanently). Yet a person can’t just take up any mode she pleases; rather, which modes she can occupy is grounded in her essential substance.274

There is a limit to the various associations a person can typify. In other words, no one person is fit for every job nor can be all things to all people: “Not every individual person is suited to every social mode.”275 Additionally, a person cannot be reduced to typical social or cultural modes. Rather, a person consists of what is ownmost about them

271 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 256. 272 Ibid., 255. 273 Ibid., 130. 274 Ibid., 291-292. 275 Ibid., 293.

Lovestone 84

from their core, and it is what manifests from individuals’ cores that instantiates the various forms of social life. Thus, there is no flat form of functioning in social roles. How a person meets expectations in associational roles is determined by their own distinct individuality.

When we are cast in the role of friend or of foe, of employer or of laborer, of holder of this or that office in this or that association, certain typical behavior is expected of us and we generally respond to these expectations by acting in the required way. Yet just how we respond, how we play out our assigned roles, will be in part determined by our individuality.276

In other words, it is the core-valent person that renders various typical social modalities concrete so no social role is mechanical, meaning impersonal, in the true sense of the word.277 As Stein puts it: “Thus, all social life and all social modes finally refer back to the core of the person....”278 The final kind of social organization that Stein identifies is community. Associations can be distinguished from community in the way that individuals are oriented to one another. These two kinds of social organizations are more closely interconnected than the other kinds, because association necessarily requires community to some extent. That is, associational relations require the type of connection that makes a community possible, even if only at a derivative level: “…a pure association that’s not to some degree a community cannot exist.”279 In association, individuals are oriented to one another as objects: “We had indicated it to be typical of the associational orientation that each individual would consider the other as object… Here, each one would regard him or herself and the others as instruments for achieving the purpose that the whole association serves.”280 But the ability to objectify another individual to meet a practical goal necessarily requires seeing another individual as a subject first, even if only as a point of

276 Alasdair MacIntyre, Edith Stein: A Philosophical Prologue 1913-1922 (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006), 131. 277 Ann W. Astell, “From Ugly Duckling to Swan: Education as Spiritual Transformation in the Thought of Edith Stein,” Spiritus: A Journal of Christian Spirituality 13:1 (Spring 2013), 6. 278 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 294. 279 Ibid., 257. 280 Ibid., 257.

Lovestone 85

departure for objectification: “You’ve got to have taken the other as a subject first, at least once, in order to be able to make his or her subjectivity into an object.”281 Additionally, association that serves a practical function inherently joins individuals together for a goal that, to some extent, presupposes shared desire or a set of shared views: “If individuals are to found an association, and join together toward the achievement of a purpose, then they’ve got to have already found themselves together ingenuously as ‘fellow travelers’ having the same desirable purpose in common in view.”282 Thus, associational bonds always contain the possibility of community because to some extent community is always presupposed in associations. In other words, no matter the extent to which a human being is objectified they had at some point been engaged with subjectively. Human beings are never only objects. Even though community can be distinguished as a way of social organization, it cannot be rigidly isolated from the other kinds of social life: “To begin, we’re not going to hold ourselves strictly to that which we were initially defining as ‘community’ over against other social unions. We can’t do that because, as we’ll see, those other social unions themselves are able to become bases of communal life.”283 That other kinds of social organizations can become the basis of community is always a possibility because the other social organizations depend only on part of the individual. And when people start to engage with each other more fully, especially when their depths of soul and core are engaged, then that is the point where community emerges. The emergence of community takes place when relationships become more than practical association or unthinking co-existence (the mass). Community starts in the mutual sharing of life, when there is a living together of shared subjectivity: “We’ve seen that a mutuality of life belongs first of all to the essence of community. This mutuality of life is such that one individual doesn’t confront the other as subject to object, but rather lives with him, is impelled by his motives, and so forth.”284 Community occurs both as one-on-one relationships and in extended attachments of a larger group. The level of

281 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 257. 282 Ibid., 257. 283 Ibid., 239. 284 Ibid., 264.

Lovestone 86

intimacy and co-living that constitutes community takes the forms of friendships and marriages, where there is a basis of unifying convictions.285 Unlike the predominantly mechanical and rational connections that characterize institutions as machine-like associations, Stein describes community as the one type of relationship where each person is able to reach out beyond their inalienable aloneness: …where a subject accepts the other as a subject and does not confront him but rather lives with him and is determined by the stirrings of his life, they are forming a community with one another. In the association, everyone is absolutely alone, a ‘windowless monad.’ In the community, solidarity prevails…it’s quite extraordinary how this ego, notwithstanding its solitaries and inalienable aloneness, can enter into a community of life with other subjects…286

Just as the person has a unique core that constitutes the highest level of individual uniqueness that most distinguishes a person as person with their own matrix of values, so too does Stein argue that in community relationships there is formed a core that grounds a larger constellation of shared values: In any case, there’s an identical core that can recur in the egoic [the individal self] contents of different subjects. And this core makes it possible for intentions to arise on the basis which bring ‘the same’ value to givenness for all those subjects. Furthermore, the core makes it possible for those intentions to mesh with one another and to allow the value to appear as an object common to all, or better: as a communal object that comprises within itself everything that’s accessible to single members.287

And like the individual person’s soul wherein all lived experiences are contained and unified that provides a sense of an individual’s own self, so too the collective experiences of community are constituted as a unified entity that is more than just an aggregate each individual experiencing: “…the communal experiences aren’t the sum of single experiences and single effects, but rather arise from those as something new and unique beyond them.”288 And because the core of community is something more than any one individual, community can exist as such for longer than the span of a single lifetime.

285 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 284. 286 Ibid., 130, 133. 287 Ibid., 165. 288 Ibid., 190, 156.

Lovestone 87

This is how community thus becomes a particular historical entity: “The ‘core’ of a community, from which its character is shaped and which guarantees its enduring being….”289 Just as both a core and a soul constitute the individual person, the community is only partly constituted by a distinguishable by an identifiable core. What is also required is a community soul—that is, shared experiences that are taken in and gathered over time that are communal: What happens within community is that you’re unlocked for one another, your soul gets encompassed by that of the others, and community operationalizes itself in communal actions and community-forming character traits. Where persons are living in common without being inwardly given over to each other and to community, you can’t talk about any soul of community. You might think of fellow-travelers, residents of a house, or students in a class, but don’t get close to one another inwardly.290

For Stein, community is more than a state of mind or shared experiences.291 As well, community can exist at varying levels depending on the extent to which members of the community are engaged at their core with each other. 292 The highest level of community is one where each person is wholly devoted and responsible for the life of the other: “We regard as the highest mode of community the union of purely free persons who are united with their innermost ‘personal’ life, or the life of soul, and each of whom feels responsible for himself or herself and for the community.”293 Thus, community is defined by and made possible according to the level of reciprocity between its members. Stein also identifies that the formation of community and the possibilities of how a person is changed by community relationships is limited. Even in the case where an individual person may be open to others and share life with others, there is a limitation to how much a person can be influenced by another: “Thus the formation of community, like the possible configuration and reshaping of the personality, is limited by individual

289 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 281. 290 Ibid., 274. 291 Calcagno, Lived Experience, 124. 292 MacIntyre, Edith Stein, 128. 293 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 278.

Lovestone 88

distinctiveness.”294 Therefore, no matter the level of intimacy and openness between people in community, a person never loses him or herself as a distinct entity. Partly this has to do with how the entirety of a person’s life is not contained by a community: “Even where the individual is participating in the communal life with his or her soul, the life of the individual need not be utterly absorbed in living in and for the community.”295 This is partly due to the extent to which each individual person throughout their life can be a part of a range of different communities: “And besides, keep in mind that each individual belongs to a whole range of communities, to which the individual distributes his or her power and which accordingly lay claim to the individual in very different degrees.”296 Thus, a person is not reducible to any one community partly because any one single community never contains all of one person. Additionally, as one of the communities in a person’s life changes them, those changes in turn influence the other communities they are a part of. For example, in my participation in my intellectual community at Oregon State University I grew in surprising ways into a better person for my family. At the same time, as I have been loved by my family I have been a better scholar for my OSU community. The influence of my family members influence how I see the world and the things I value, which in turn affects the values I assert in my academic work and how I engage with my scholarly community at university. At the same time, my relationships at university contribute to how I relate to my family members and participate in their lives. Anyone who wants to have a full picture of my social life cannot only look at my family contexts or my university contexts, but both, along with other communities I have been a part of in my life. Similarly, Stein asserts: The family that I come from and the community of scientific work that I join are two communities that as such have nothing at all to do with one another, don’t know one another, know nothing about one another, and exert no direct impact upon one another. But through my mediation a causal bond can be established between them. When power pours into me from the one, I can feed it into the other.297

294 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 271 295 Ibid., 279. 296 Ibid., 203. 297 Ibid., 207.

Lovestone 89

Individual persons are always more and less than their communities. The relationships that a person is engaged in do not exhaust the possibilities of their person or constitute the entirety of their being: “But even where the person is the very image of the communal type, her being is not exhausted in that.”298 And, conversely, the community’s core that makes it particular comes from what is irreducible and irreplaceable in each of the community’s individual persons, their core: “The genuine being of community has its origin in the personal individuality of the individuals, not vice versa, though there is mutual influence.”299 Stein sketches a more robust sociology that can assert typifying generalizations without flattening out and diminishing the uniqueness of the unique person of each of its individuals. Just as Stein establishes a view of the human being in terms of a four-layered structure, Stein asserts there are four different types of social organizations that are distinct but not disparate. Just as the distinct person is interrelated with the physical, sentient, and thinking aspects of their human structuration, so too do communities arise out of the different kinds of social life as type, mass, and association. However, both community and person in the full sense of those concepts require the engagement of the core and soul, both at the individual and shared level. Thus, community is understood as somewhat of an analog of person.300 As will be explored further in the next chapter, community and person are co-enacting, they emerge together and are intertwined—you do not have one without the other. In order to ground the humanities as a science in its own right (the goal that Stein inherited from Husserl as described in chapter two), Stein recognized the need for an identifiable scientific concept that could account for change. This is because for her inquiry into the how of emergence and development as an individual in relationships, it is not enough to say what an individual person and community are since the development of person and community is always ongoing. Stein invents a unifying concept that accounts

298 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 263. 299 Baseheart, Person in the World, 64. 300 Hanna-Barbara Gerl-Falkovitz, “Edith Stein’s Little-Known Side: Social Philosophy out of the Spirit of Phenomenology,” American Catholic Philosophcial Quarterly 83, no. 4 (2009): 569.

Lovestone 90

for the possibilities of change. Thus we zoom out from a focus on the ‘instrument’ of community and focus in on appreciating the next significant part of the orchestra: lifepower.

Lifepower (Lebenskraft) Stein invents a scientific concept specific to the humanities similar to the concept of causality for the physical sciences: lebenskraft (translated into English as lifepower, lifesphere, or lifeforce).301 Lifepower is the factor of change and energy that is a key qualification for how the humanities function as a science. Stein recognized that the humanities required its own concept to account for change because, unlike the physical sciences, the empirical realities of the humanities are always mixed, per the interconnected four-layer structure of all human beings. In other words, human beings as objects of study are not only physical objects and thus how human beings change cannot be fully accounted for with the law of causality. Stein seeks to establish a science that can account for change not only in the material physical world, which comprises only one layer of the human being, but also how change occurs in sentient-intellectual life, the living body (Leib). Notably, this treatment of the intellect and sensing life together as a co-constitutional unity departs from the dualistic explanatory models that dominate western thought from the time of Descartes. Stein shows how physicality, thinking and sensing always occur together and are co-effecting in terms of lifepower— in doing so, Stein breaks down the rigid distinctions typically made of the physical, intellectual, and sentient. 302 Thus, Stein goes well beyond the dualistic model so familiar to . Lifepower operates as a concept of change in terms of its function as an energy source that that is consumed (as well as renewed) in lived experience: ...the experiences nibble away at the lifesphere perceptibly, and thus on their side bring about a change in it. Every single experience--and accordingly, the real status that it manifests--costs a certain expenditure in lifeforce. Experience eats away at lifepower; and since experience diminishes lifepower, experience must also bring about an altered

301 Sawicki, intro to Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, xviii. 302 Sawicki, Body, Text, and Science, 118.

Lovestone 91

manifestation of the altered mode of lifepower. For example, experience is capable of evoking a transition from vigor to weariness.303

Yet the type of energy that lifepower is cannot be expressed numerically or mathematically.304 In some sense then, Stein’s concept of lifepower as a ‘scientific’ concept is open to criticism on the grounds that scientific concepts and laws require exact mathematical quantification. However, if science is thought of as more than math and numbers, lifepower can be a way to qualify the intensity measurement of change in different life-states that are spectral, such as vigor and fatigue, excitement and boredom. Changes in life-states (going from boredom to excitement) indicate changes in lifepower, and the amount of lifepower available modifies experience in terms of how much a person can engage in the experience.305 The different alterations in lifepower result in either the expansion or restriction of the capacity to take in the contents of experiences: “What lifepower has converted itself into is the enhanced receptivity that manifests itself in the broadening of the experiential range or in the greater intensity of the experiential content.”306 For example, say that I have stayed up late for days on end writing a master’s thesis, and as a result of the mental output I am deeply exhausted. In the midst of this exhaustion, I need to attend a lecture that has come up on my schedule. But while listening to lecture, the professor’s words seem to only bounce off of me and I struggle to absorb the contents of what is being communicated. My ability for reception of the classroom experience is minimal because I do not have a lot of lifepower available, which was spent the previous day working on my thesis, and my lifepower has yet to be replenished. As Stein would say: “The number and the maturity of the sentient abilities and properties that an individual can bring to deployment within himself depends on the amount of available lifepower.”307 Conversely, say that I did not miss a night’s sleep for the sake of thesis writing. Thus, I am invigorated with plenty of lifepower. I am able to

303 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 27. 304 Ibid., 34. 305 Baseheart, Person in the World, 43. 306 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 30. 307 Ibid., 198.

Lovestone 92

comprehend the professor’s lecture, participate, and make the most of my classroom experience. Because I have plenty of lifepower, it can be spent absorbing more from the lecture. As Stein would put it: “It takes a certain kind of aliveness [lifepower] to accept any kind of content at all and to be able to experience it (and certainly, a different level of aliveness according to the kind of content; for example, les for sensory data than for a conviction or a joy).”308 In terms of weariness and vigor, Stein’s concept of lifepower articulates how physical activities and bodily conditions affect mental capabilities and vice versa:309 Mental lifepower appears to be determined by sensory lifepower: as a rule, mental vigor also fades along with bodily vigor. Yet aside from that, mental lifepower remains open to influxes from the object world and through them can become capable of achievements which don’t accord with the state of the sensory lifepower….Furthermore, it should be noted that all mental life implies a consumption of sensory lifepower.... So you have to say straight out that the more sensory lifepower you lose, the more mental lifepower you deliver.” 310

Thus the concept of lifepower shows the interrelationship of mental acts and sensing acts, that the two have an inverse effect on one another. The rejuvination of lifepower received through bodily sensations makes lifepower available for mental processes. This interdependence and the amount of lifepower is what constitutes the quantity and quality of our thinking and sensing lives. The life of sentience appears to us, in our investigations, as a result of the co-operation of powers of various kinds. We distinguish a sensory lifepower, which converts itself into the reception of sensory data (into different capacities for the reception of sensory data, that is) as well as into sensory impulses and their activities. Besides that, sensory lifepower serves for the conservation of mental lifepower, from which the mental activities and capacities are fed.311

Stein also discusses lifepower in terms of the capacity to bring feelings to expression in a bodily manner, or somatic affectivity—the way that the body

308 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 80-81. 309 Sawicki, Body, Text, and Science, 119. 310 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 81-82. 311 Ibid., 115.

Lovestone 93

communicates feelings. That is, the body not only articulates sensations from the environment but affectively communicates feelings, emotions, and moods, both to our own selves and to others: “... in concrete physic contexts we actually do find phenomena which do not ground feelings, to be sure, though they can make them intelligible. ‘Our heart stops beating’ for joy; we ‘wince’ in pain; our pulse races in alarm; and we are breathless.”312 Additionally, the body can affectively communicate the status of mood or emotive state that an individual may not be aware of themselves. In terms of the previous example, I may go to class preoccupied with the business of my commute and meeting requirements unaware of my own exhausted state from having worked on my thesis until perhaps my colleague comments on my tired appearance. And it is when my colleague tells me that I look tired that I suddenly realize that, yes, I feel exhausted. As Stein would say: “A weariness can be present (perhaps betray itself to others through my exterior) without my knowing anything about it myself.”313 Thus, Stein here articulates what is referred to in contemporary psychology as somatization—how the body communicates feelings and emotions. However, in Stein’s conception she emphasizes the doubleness of embodied expression. In other words, the external appearance of somatic phenomena is at the same time experienced internally: Feelings and expression are related by nature and meaning, not causality. The bodily expression, like other possible forms issuing from feeling and its meaning, is therefore also definitely experienced. For I not only feel how feeling is poured into expression and ‘unloaded’ in it, but at the same time I have this expression given in bodily perception. The smile in which my pleasure is experientially externalized is at the same time given to me as a stretching of my lips.314

Both external and internal expression of changes in lifepower show how the body and the ensouled person bear out the effects of lived experiences. Additionally, the contexts of experience can have a reciprocal effect on the status of lifepower. Additionally, the soul also has an effect on lifepower. The contents of experience that the soul takes in not only shape the person but also can continue to affect the amount of lifepower a person has. As was explained previously in this chapter, because the soul

312 Stein, Empathy, 50. 313 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 21. 314 Stein, Empathy, 53.

Lovestone 94

acts as the unifying retainer of lived experiences, as the experiences of our life become part of the substance of our being the contents of past experience carry efficacy for how and how much we engage in present experience: Everything living into the present can have an effect, irrespective of how far the initiation of the affecting experience is from ‘now.’ Experiences of early childhood can also endure into my present, even though pushed into the background by the profusion of later events. This can be clearly seen in dispositions toward other persons. I do not ‘forget’ my friends when I am not thinking of them. They then belong to the unnoticed present horizon of my world. My love for them is living even when I am not living in it. It influences my actual feelings and conduct.”315

In other words, past experiences of things and people that are taken up into the soul continue to affect the energy source available for experiencing (lifepower), and lifepower has a determining role in how the content of present experiences are engaged. For example, say that in the midst of my exhaustion from having worked on my thesis I a happy memory that perhaps makes me laugh suddenly comes to me. I feel my energy pick up a bit—that memory retained in my soul renewed the amount of lifepower I have available to continue to think and write. Along with sensations and thinking, feelings and emotions play a distinct influential role on lifepower. Feelings and emotions are similar to physical sensations and intellect in that feelings and emotions draw on or replenishing lifepower. However, feelings and emotions are distinct from thinking and sensing in that feelings and emotions are encompassing: Every qualitatively particular feeling has its specific effect: sorrow works to paralyze, joy to invigorate, and so forth. The influxes that lifepower gets from the feelings enhance the experiencing as a whole, as we know. But they don’t bring themselves to bear only as indifferent intensifications of power. Rather, they import into the lifesphere the qualitative coloration that is proper to the feelings, and this coloration communicates itself from here out to the overall experiencing.316

Feelings color the entirety of the experience and determine lifepower in particular ways. Likewise, feelings have a particularly compromising effect on the soul:

315 Stein, Empathy, 74. 316 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 217.

Lovestone 95

These “colorations” are what we’ve designated as the “mood ingredients” of the feelings, in another place. The essence of moods is that they are total states of the soul, live states with a coloration of feeling, and that thanks to this qualitative note, they give to lifepower not only a certain height but also a set trend [Richtungsbestimmetheit—a determination of direction].317

In other words, feelings and mood states play the particular role in determining the soul’s dispositional orientation to experiences as well as the amount of available lifepower to engage in experiences. There is one last ‘instrument’ that plays a vital role in the orchestra: values. For Stein, the kinds of values a person can perceive is based on their core. And it is the values that inform how a person knows and creates knowledge. Thus, this last instrument in particular is key for thinking about how the particulars of a person is ultimately what grounds knowledge in the humanities.

Values The role of values in perception is, perhaps, one of the ways to identify how Stein’s phenomenology functions as a unified basis for the sciences. In her discussion of values, Stein gives a way to account for how the entire person and their feelings are involved in the perception of objects, and, thus, Stein’s discussion of the role of values in perception is complex. In discussing the role of values in perception Stein draws on the concepts of lifepower, feeling, objects, and attitudes. These concepts are interwoven in different ways to establish how perception has to take account of all the different aspects of the perceiver in their entirety—in other words, to take account of the perceiver as a person. With lifepower, Stein introduces a way to take account of the fluctuations in the ability to perceive and express in terms of feelings that corresponds with their particular values. Feelings and value are interconnected and codetermining. For example, the capacity to feel informs how I react to a particular object and my corresponding affect in and of itself is based whether or not I am able to recognize something as having value:

317 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 217-218. See also Sawicki’s footnote 135 for German translation of Richtungsbestimmtheit.

Lovestone 96

To any value, there corresponds a feeling whose aliveness is entirely determinate, as an “adequate” reaction to the value; and that aliveness at the same time is required for any further acts to be called to life. In a causally determined mental life, the first question you have to ask is whether the amount of inner aliveness available is the amount that must be there so that the value can be grasped. If it is, then the degree of aliveness that the feeling displays (owing to its dependence upon the available lifepower) can still be greater or lesser than is commensurate with the value. And finally, that aliveness which the value itself supplies, and which accordingly emanates from the corresponding feeling, does not accrue merely to the acts that are motivated by it, but rather to the mental life as a whole.318

In other words, how a person feels plays a determining role in valuation for mental receptivity. For example, because I value history when I learn something new about history in a class lecture or from an article I react with passionate feelings— sometimes excitement, sometimes grumpiness, and so on. Those feelings play a key role in my grasp of historical content intellectually. The feelings I have about history and particular historical information underwrite my value of history according to the larger constellation of my core values. It is my core values that determine my receptivity to historical knowledge and these values allow me to recognize what I learned as valuable in the first place. And the inverse could be used as an example as well—if I do not hold that something I am learning is valuable I am indifferent in the learning process and, thus, those feelings do not play the necessary role in my ability to intellectual grasp and retain course content. Moreover, Stein asserts that feelings and values play a constitutive role in the perception of objects. Objects are always value-laden: “A value-constitution goes hand in hand with every object constitution. Every fully constituted object is simultaneously a value-object.”319 However, the perception of the values of objects depends on the feelings in the moment of perception: “Perceptions and recollections of what was perceived, acts of thinking--in short, all acts in which ‘matters are given’--are carried out in a manner determined by the distinctive character of life feeling at the time…”320 Yet, Stein

318 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 86. 319 Ibid., 160. 320 Ibid., 75.

Lovestone 97

qualifies that the perception of objects, like the unfolding of the unique person as such from their core, is not automatically guaranteed. That is, the perception of objects as value-endowed is conditioned by the kind of person the perceiver is and the kinds of qualities that have or have not developed in their soul: Nevertheless the thing and its value don’t stand side by side without any connection either. First of all, it’s certain that the value of an object that isn’t intuitively present (or, being presented) cannot itself be fully experienced. Thus, the intuitive givenness is a condicio sine qua non of full value-experiencing, but it doesn’t suffice to ensure it. Rather, an inner condition of the subject must be added in order to render possible the acquisition of the value.321

Therefore, there is always the possibility that the value of an object is inaccessible. As Stein asserts: “You can confront a bodily present thing without having any hunch that it’s the bearer of a value.”322 Moreover, Stein has emphasized how the recognition of an object as valuable necessitates feeling. Even if an object is emphasized as valuable, the perceiver may not have the responsive feelings that are necessary for their own recognition of the object’s value and thus remain blind to the value of an object: “You can have a thing in front of you and know, on the basis of a message, that it possesses a value, without catching sight of this value yourself. In both cases, you as subject are value-blind.”323 Feelings play the constitutive role in affective response that enables seeing objects in their entirety as both physical objects and objects of value. Without responsive feelings, the perception of objects is blunted, and therefore partial. What Stein presents here is that the role of the feelings is central to perception of the objects of the humanities in terms of grasping any object’s multivalency. However, there is a limitation to the extent to which any perceiver can choose or control receptivity to particular values. This is because the particular values that any individual person perceives is based on their core, which is the fundamental constitutive factor of a person’s uniqueness: “The susceptibility for values and the radiant center of

321 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 162. 322 Ibid. 323 Ibid.

Lovestone 98

creative doing have precisely that depth that we ascribe to the static qualities of your soul. They are built in to the core of your person.”324 Thus, the recognition and grasping of certain objects’ value is only directly accessible to the person that they are. Stein’s emphasis of the role of the feelings and perception of values is also what put her at odds with the psychology of her own time. Stein disagreed with a psychology that reduced feelings to a function of the physical body and argued, as we have seen, for an understanding of feeling and personhood as constitutional of mental life and thus constitutional for knowledge. Stein argues that the psychology of her time was dismissive of an entire world of objective inquiry: Over and over again, the psychological faction has sought to contest the unique being of feelings and to explain them as ‘complexes of organ sensations.’ These futile efforts rest upon the correct insight that a founding substrate plays an essential role in the concrescence of the affective experiences, and that sensory feelings form this substrate in a certain class of affective acts. What’s utterly mistaken about this theory is to be sought in the fact that it misconstrues the intentional character of mental feelings. It doesn’t see that--just as with perception--a mental apprehension springs up on account of the egoic contents, turning them into bearers of a gift of sense, and that those egoic contents in their ‘function of manifestation’ reveal to the subject the view into a new object world. This new object world, which unfolds before us as we feel, is the world of value.325

Stein asserts that the basis of values is the ego, or the “I” that each person is.326 Moreover, the person not only grounds the possibilities of perceiving objects as valuable but also grounds affective attitudes: “Now as for the egoic contents [contents specific to a particular individual], they have a twofold constitutive function. One, they are the material on the basis of which values come to givenness for us. And two, they deliver up the stuff for the corresponding affective attitude.”327 For Stein, affective attitudes is the body’ communication of how a person values objects. Because person is

324 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 237. 325 Ibid., 158. 326 The use of the term ‘ego’ for Stein is simply the first-person singular pronoun in Latin and Greek; Stein was proficient in both of those languages. Ego does not have the connotations typically associated with the term in English. See footnote by Sawicki (22) in Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 17. 327 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 160.

Lovestone 99

interconnected with the physical body, how we value an object is communicated in what we look like externally when we perceive objects: “For every attitude is an attitude toward something and holds true for something objective that must be apprehended in some way or other. So we see, the answer is values: values that are inseparably bound up with the being of the person.”328 For Stein, attitudes are the affective expression of valuation that is based on the core of the person.329 Thus, ways of valuing and the corresponding affective attitudes are not something that is chosen. Rather attitudes are something that ‘befalls’ an individual based on their core and quality of the soul: Forming attitudes, like absorbing information, is something that ‘befalls’ me. I cannot execute them in the same manner in which I freely pay attention. I cannot decide for and against them as I please… Rather, attitudes are simply there on the basis of information uptake. I’m not faced with any choice. They seize possession of me… I can yearn for religious faith and fret about it with all my might, and yet that doesn’t make it happen for me. I can become absorbed in the greatness of character without being able to muster up the admiration that it deserves. In these respects, then, I am not free.330

Stein goes on to assert that attitudes can be accepted or denied to a certain extent, but the control of attitudes are limited.331 This is because attitudes are grounded in the core of a person. Getting rid of or changing an attitude in order to value differently requires a transformation of the entire person. Stein asserts that this is a possibility, but not something that is achieved independently or in isolation. Rather, changing one’s core requires a transformation from what Stein refers to as an ‘other-worldly’ power: Any work on yourself, any efforts toward a cleansing of your soul can consist only in this: to suppress negatively valued deeds and stirrings of your soul and to combat the disposition to them, or even not to let them arise, and conversely to hold yourself open for positive values. But you can neither instill the qualities of your soul into yourself nor break yourself of them. If a change enters into this sphere, then it’s not the

328 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 212. 329 Ibid., 213. 330 Ibid., 48-49. 331 Ibid., 52.

Lovestone 100

occurrence of a ‘development,’ but rather is to be regarded as a transformation through an ‘otherworldly’ power, that is, a power situated outside of the person and outside of all of the all natural connections in which she is entangled.332

Stein does not qualify what she means by an ‘other-worldy’ power with an example. What is clear, however, is that individuals have a limited control of their value-base attitudes. As we will see in the next chapter, interpersonal affective attitudes play the key role in the unfolding of the core of others. How we look to others, our interpersonal affect, is determined by how we value them. Or as Stein puts it: “We love and hate, will and act, are happy and sad and look like it.”333 Moreover, whether or not someone is perceived as valuable determines the extent to which they can unfold as their unique person from their core. Consequently, the extent to which a person is developed determines the perception of values, ability to feel, and the amount of accessible lifepower. In other words, the perception of another as valuable plays a determining role in that individual’s ability to experience life fully, to experience life as a person.

This chapter has explored four “instruments,” or key concepts, in Stein’s phenomenology: person, community, lifepower, and values. For the concept of person, all four of the layers that constitute human beings (physical, sentient, intellect, and person) are interconnected and interweave and are shaped interdependently with the others. Notably, the layering that Stein asserts is not something that can be simplified into the typical dichotomous structure of ‘body and soul.’334 Rather, Stein’s view of the person is a totality of qualities that are formed out of the central core of each particular individual that unfolds into soul, body, and sentience, and physiology. 335 All four layers interweave and form the fabric out of which a distinct individual emerges.

332 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 232-233. 333 Stein, Empathy, 88. 334 Sawicki, “Personal Connections,” 155. 335 Mary Catherine Baseheart, “Edith Stein (1891-1942),” The History of Women Philosophers.

Lovestone 101

Analogous to the layered structure of person is the different types of social organizations. Within the different types of social organizations, community comes about to the extent that persons are mutually open with one another. At the same time, persons and community are possibilities that form to varying degrees depending on the level of lifepower available to each person that determines how much a person can take in from lived experience. At the same time, valuation and feelings are rooted in the core as the “radiating point of values,” 336 and the core plays a determining role in how objects are valued and thus how they are perceived. As well, attitudes are correspondent to a person’s values. How a person appears and interacts affectively at a physical level is rooted in the topmost layer of their structure, their core. Thus, for Stein, valuing is the activity that involves the whole person. The next chapter examines the different possibilities in relationship that play the determining role in the awakening and unfolding of the core, which, as we will see, are effected by attitudes, by affectivity. In other words, the value-attitudes that an individual is confronted with from others plays the determining role for whether or not they will become the person that is given at their core for them to be. Valuation of person in relationships plays the most significant role in determining the extent to which an individual’s person can unfold out of their core, to become what is “ownmost” of them to be. For Stein, it is relationships that are key to the development of each person as a unique human being, and there are distinct possibilities that she identifies. Developmentally it is possible for someone to live entirely through others and not develop, or unfold, a grounded and unique viewpoint of the world. It is also just as possible that unfolding, or development of person, may be blunted or damaged when confronted by relationships that are unaffirming and closed to the possibilities of what a person has in themselves to become. Blunting or thwarting of unfolding results in the loss or limitation of an irreplaceable point of view on the world—this represents a loss that is so important to the assertion of Stein’s unified foundation of the sciences as a multiplicity

Eds. Gilles Mènage and Beatrice H. Zedler (Lanham: University Press of America, 1984): 171. 336 Sawicki, Body, Text, and Science, 135.

Lovestone 102

of viewpoints on the world as explained in the culminating section of the previous chapter. This is because it is the core and the extent to which it has unfolded that brings about new possibilities of perception, since each person as a unique entity has an irreplaceable constellation of values that cannot be replaced. So when a person can develop as such from who they are at their core, a grounded and irreplaceable view on the world becomes a real possibility.

Lovestone 103

Chapter Five Enfaltung

In the previous chapter I described the relation of chapter four to five with the metaphor of an orchestra. I argued that appreciating the power of an orchestra requires appreciating the distinctiveness of each instrument: person, community, lifepower, and values. Thus this chapter moves beyond a discussion of instruments to the orchestra— what is brought about when all the different pieces are brought together to explain how they function as a whole. The ‘orchestra’ that I discuss in this chapter is interpersonal relationships—we always bring the fullness of who we are as layered beings with particular values, experiential capacities, and varying levels of lifepower into our engagement with other people. But it is first and foremost our experiences in interpersonal relationships that make the core available in the first place. The term that Stein often uses to refer to this emergence out of a core is Entfaltung, which means ‘unfolding,’ or ‘blooming,’ or even ‘unfurling.’337 Unfolding refers to the opening of the core, which, as was explained in chapter four, informs the fundamental structure of human beings. As Stein describes it, the relational moment of when and how much of the core becomes available is unpredictable. Stein describes it as an ‘awakening.’ Up until the point of awakening of the core, particular aspects the person remains inaccessible, dormant and enclosed. Thus, someone’s affect and their perception of the world may be informed by values that are not grounded in who they are at their depths. But once the core is awakened, what is unfolded of the core plays an active part in the entirety of the individual as person whose perception and capacity is identifiably more deeply grounded in their being. They may have new values that emerge from their core that reach into the matrix of their intellect-sensate life (their Leib) that makes their own non-displaceable orientation to the world, or zero point of orientation (Nullpunkt), more grounded in who they are at their depths.

337 Sawicki footnote 153, in Edith Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, trans. M.C. Baseheart and M. Sawicki (Washington, DC: ICS Publications, 2000), 232.

Lovestone 104

However, there is no guarantee that the level of relational openness between persons necessary for the core to awaken will take place. Thus, the emergence of a fully constituted person is not a guarantee. The unfolding from the core is contingent on the limits of the person’s living body and the level of openness in their relationships. This chapter examines the possibilities of person development depending on kinds of different kinds of interpersonal relationships. For Stein a person radically depends on open and reciprocal engagement others to be fully constituted as such and, likewise, for communities to be what they are as beyond association. This final chapter will examine Stein’s particular emphasis on ways of co-emergence, or development, of a person in relationships—the ways in which persons and communities are possible or become impossibilities. The emergence of person is always also an emergence of community—the one is not possible without the other. However, a person lives out as his or her own person under certain contingent conditions. Stein sketches out different possibilities of person that never unfolds, where unfolding is damaged or restricted, and where unfolding of the person can develop. It is both aspects—the person and community—and showing their co-emergence together is what fully achieves Stein’s phenomenological foundation of the sciences. This is because each person is a particular point of access to the world that ensures an actual multiplicity of viewpoints that are more than differences in spatiality. In terms of values, what Stein helps us to see is the importance of community and the core development of each person for well-grounded work in the humanities, and how persons becoming persons are vulnerable to affective valuations that can either restrict or enable unfolding. Indeed, valid claims about reality necessarily require the unfolded person. That is, the irreplaceable and unrepeatable particular zero point of orientation (Nullpunkt) of reality that the scholar occupies with who they are at their depths constitutes is the unified foundation of the sciences. Thus, this chapter will complete the explanation of how Stein asserts the unified foundation for the sciences as the unfolded person.

Lovestone 105

Awakening Even though the emphasis on relational possibilities takes up the majority of this chapter, it is worthwhile first to mention that Stein also identifies that there is a limit to the unfolding of person that is partly set by the physical body (Körper):

So the psycho-physical empirical person can be a more or less complete realization of the spiritual [the core-soul] one. It is conceivable for a man’s life to be a complete process of his personality’s unfolding; but it is also possible that psycho-physical development does not permit a complete unfolding, and, in fact, in different ways. He who dies in childhood or falls victim of a paralysis cannot unfold ‘himself’ completely.338

Stein identifies definite limitations of unfolding as what is partly set by the physical body. However, the limitations of a physical body are at the same time relational limitations. Bodily and psychosomatic capacities have a bearing on both the ability to take in experiential content as well as engage in relationships. That is, relationships are always embodied. Correspondingly, the way we treat each other’s bodies in a fundamentally physical way affects whether or not we can actualize and live out our own personhood. While the maiming or murder of another’s body as a physical act may not transform the murdered person at their core, the physical effects limit the extent to which their unique person can be fully actualized. A person ‘unfolds’ under certain conditions that are as physical as they are relational. 339 What occurs between persons is not only what is transmitted by intellectual, language-expressed mental life but occurs in embodied interpersonal acts that affect the core’s emergence.

The awakening of the core is something that is not only physical but is relational. Stein identifies that it takes a very special experiential occurrence in interpersonal relationships to ‘awaken’ the deepest aspects of person that lie dormant in them. In other words, it is experiential moments in relationships that awaken the core’s unfolding:

338 Edith Stein, On the Problem of Empathy, 3rd edition, trans. W. Stein (Washington, DC: ICS Publications, 1988), 111. 339 Marianne Sawicki, Body, Text, and Science: The Literacy of Investigative Practices and the Phenomenology of Edith Stein (Boston: Kluwer, 1997), 138-139.

Lovestone 106

Beneath the surface of sentient development, your soul is ripening and imprinting that development with its trademark, without the soul’s being determined itself by the sentient development. The ripening itself is to be distinguished from [its] showing up within the actuality of living and within character development. Obviously, contact with the world isn’t optional for the showing up, the blossoming of your soul. But this sort of contact is altogether different from the impact of external circumstances on the development of an original predisposition. Specific external circumstances are required so that a specific predisposition can unfold and the corresponding sentient ability can develop; for an artistic talent, perhaps contact with the corresponding aesthetic values. What can help your soul along to its ‘awakening,’ that’s completely beyond saying. Anything and everything can suddenly strike in the depths, to where nothing was able to make headway before. And if that happens, it doesn’t impart training to this or that ability. Rather, the whole abundance of your soul bursts forth in the actuality of living, an actuality which discloses that that living is just now becoming ‘soul filled.’340

Stein asserts that the awakening of the core is not a function of thinking or sensing but is something that occurs when persons are open to one another, when the topmost layer of their being is opened and engaged. We are awakened at our core by how we value one another. While thinking and sensing do not have a direct or controllable role in awakening, awakening of the soul-core deeply affects sentience and mental life from that point forward. What Stein describes as awakening is more like transformation than it is like training, where training is a more gradual change over time. This is because awakening is not something that can be achieved by training because it cannot be predicted or enforced. What changes of the ensouled core is something different than intellectual, artistic, or physical capacities. Instead, because awakening makes available aspects of the core, the core can make available different capacities that can be trained by intellectual or physical engagement.341 As we will see in the remainder of the chapter, the same is true of the opposite possibility. It is unpredictable or perhaps surprising the ways that external conditions can strike through to the core and affect a person in a way that makes the emergence of who

340 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 233. 341 Alasdair MacIntyre, Edith Stein: A Philosophical Prologue 1913-1922 (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006), 125.

Lovestone 107

someone is at their depths impossible. We will now turn to what can be distinguished as three distinct possibilities of person development: never unfolding, the potentiality of unfolding is thwarted, and what makes unfolding possible.

The Possibility of Never Unfolding Stein asserts that the development of person is necessarily dependent on community. In the last chapter, community was described as relationships that are open to one another and do not treat one another as objects, as with association relationships. Rather, community relationships are relationships where life is lived together, where we take responsibility for one another’s wellbeing. However, the effect of communal life is not necessarily always good for the person. As was discussed in the last chapter, each person’s soul takes in the contents of experiences of the world, and this includes taking in what is experienced of other’s feelings and values. Taking in the feelings of others can be purely passive and obscure our own feelings and values that are rooted in our core: “As we live in the feelings of our environment, we take them for our own, though they do not clarify our own feelings at all.”342 An individual’s engagement in community can result in the person taking in others’ feelings and corresponding values as their own, which results in them never living out who they are from their core:343 “Finally, it is also conceivable for the personality not to unfold at all. He who does not feel values himself but acquires all feelings only through contagion from others, cannot experience ‘himself.’ He can become, not a personality, but at most a phantom of one.”344 Here, Stein asserts that it is a possibility to have feelings that are not grounded in who we are and can be misguided about our own fundamental values. The states of feelings from others that affect an individual’s interiority that are not genuinely their own can have intense consequences insofar as the individual may not become that irreplaceable zero point of orientation on the world (Nullpunkt) that is so important to Stein’s assertion that the foundation of the sciences is the unfolded person.

342 Stein, Empathy, 31. 343 MacIntyre, Edith Stein, 128. 344 Stein, Empathy, 111.

Lovestone 108

There are also intense sociological consequences that can be identified when individuals do not unfold from their core. One such example is the consequences of racial hatred: Suppose that I have taken over from my environment a hatred and contemporary for the members of a particular race or part. For example, as the child of conservative parents, I may hate Jews and social democrats, or, raised with more liberal views, I may hate “Junkers” [aristocratic landowners]. Then this would be an entirely genuine and sincere hatred save for the fact that it is based on an empathetic valuing, rather than on a primordial one.345

What Stein clarifies is that the feeling of hatred taken over from an individual’s community is not unreal, it is simply ungrounded in what is most distinctive of the person. The content of such hatred is a result of empathy, which, as we will recall from chapter three, means that I have a real experience of another’s contents of experience, but the originary experiential grounds of that hatred are not actually mine, and can never be made my own. But what happens for someone that has not ‘awakened’ and has not yet realized their distinct personhood as it is grounded in their core is that they mistake their community’s hatred and ways of valuing other races, as their own. The empathized experience of the feeling of hatred itself is real, but the object of empathy (in the above example as Jew-hatred) is not actual.346 In other words, the individual is not deceived about their feelings of hatred, but about the object of their feelings: “Because a primordial valuing is lacking as a foundation, we also have ‘non-genuineness’ here. This results in a false relationship between the feeling, on the one hand, and its subject and object, on the other.”347 What is evident here is that the individual does not have a basis by which to access the original source of disvaluing Jews because their own basis of value, of feeling, and the original experience was never carried out themselves. What they experienced was others’ hatred. A way of discovering that hatred of another race that is not rooted in one’s own person is by interpersonal engagement with those of the hated race in a way that is open and self-

345 Stein, Empathy, 31. 346 Mary Catherine Baseheart, Person in the World: Introduction to the Philosophy of Edith Stein (Dordrecht: Springer, 2010), 34. 347 Stein, Empathy, 32.

Lovestone 109

reflective. Thereafter, by comparison of direct experience the hated group with the experience of hate-feelings from their prior community they can distinguish the extent to which such hatred and racial values is rooted in their own core.348 Other instances of the formation of artificial feelings and ungrounded values can come about as a result of educational processes and the role of family in the socialization of a child. There is the real possibility that the educational efforts and socialization processes of one’s childhood can equip them to live as an imposter, that can altogether prevent someone’s discovery of who they have in themselves to be. 349 For example, a common ‘coming of age’ trope for university students of the twenty-first century is that it is a time of ‘experimentation,’ where the values inculcated in them by their family are tested out in their own experiences outside of their family community. A person can potentially come to find the values they have taken into their person from their family and childhood communities are actually rooted in their core. Yet a person can also potentially discover key differences between their core values and the values of their childhood communities, and therein discover retrospectively how their person’s unfolding has been blunted in significant ways. At that point, the person can negotiate the level of accommodation in their engagement with their family community based on what they are willing to compromise of their core values, which can go well or go badly. There is the potential for individuals to choose to mute the aspects of their core that has been awakened. Yet a return to what was before unfolding is not a possibility, and thus they become victims of the struggle for an inner identification with their childhood community that may no longer be possible for them.350 From the standpoint of the community, there is an extent to which a community may not fully actualize, or unfold as core-valent, on the basis of whether or not it is able to fully accommodate and play the part of actualizing each of its persons—to expand or add to its collective set of values. This is because the consequences of inflexibility to the ways in which persons may change the community runs the risk of impeding the unfolding of persons that would, reflexively, enrich it by making available that person’s

348 Sawicki, Body, Text, and Science, 105-106. 349 Ibid., 139. 350 MacIntyre, Edith Stein, 128.

Lovestone 110

core-based values: “If I’m living perpetually in surroundings in which only a portion of my predisposition can bloom, then the rest runs the risk of being stunted.”351 What is revealed, in that case, is that the problem resides with the community: as it is closed to the core-depths of a person it is at the same time circumscribing that person’s core and may make their unfolding an impossibility. Ultimately, what that person can contribute to the community remains ungiven, remains only as a dormant possibility: Suppose an individual can’t find a toehold, in the community to which he or she happens to belong, for the gifts that he or she could in principle make fruitful for any community. This then is a factual imperfection of this community, which isn’t capable of utilizing all of the powers dormant within it.352

Thus there is the sense in which communities can restrict the unfolding of persons, that a person can go through their life having only been in community relationships that do not engage them at their depths: “A defective unfolding is also possible in a sound organism. He who never meets a person worthy of love or hate can never experienced the depths in which love and hate are rooted.”353 Stein further describes this ‘defective unfolding’ as an ‘incomplete person,’ likening this development of person to an ‘unfinished sketch.’354 An excellent example of the possibilities of incomplete personhood found in literature is The Death of Ivan Ilych by Leo Tolstoy. The main character, Ivan, lives out the majority of his existence in a superficial way. Ivan acquires all the material trappings of middle-class life, where his efforts of personal and relational development are entirely externalized. What is central to him is his job with a judicial court. As Ivan moves more up the social ladder, his relationships at home become more and more intolerable. One day Ivan sustains an injury that gradually becomes more and more detrimental to his health, where the superficial social achievements are taken away one by one until he is bedbound. The community of his family which he is then restricted to are incapable of ‘living with’ him. Yet when Ivan comes to know a caretaker and comforter in his illness,

351 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 268. 352 Ibid., 286. 353 Stein, Empathy, 111. 354 Ibid.

Lovestone 111

Gerasim, whose depth and level of interpersonal connection with Ivan results in Ivan’s awakening of the depths of his person that provides for the possibility of a personal death which Ivan experienced shortly thereafter. Tolstoy emphasizes the awakening moment Ivan had with Gerasim as the first genuine experience of Ivan’s life. Stein’s phenomenology supports the argument that an Ivan Illych is a real possibility. It is possible to go through life having not engaged our topmost layer, but live at the level of the intellect and sensate life. This possibility is due to the nature of the living body (Leib). Our sensing and thinking capacities are receptive and do not necessarily require a basis in the core to function. In other words, it is possible that an individual can live out their lives only externally and only be shaped by external influences: “The plasticity of the sentient, its propensity to be formed by external influences, allows for the possibility in principle that a sentient individual is merely a copy of an authentic individuality of soul, and is not shaped from without out of a core of its own.”355 Stein clarifies that this possibility of living only by external influences of sentient and intellect is a living at the periphery of one’s being and never at the center. As was seen in the closing chapters of The Death of Ivan Illych, living at the periphery of one’s being and not grounded in the core results in a life of suffering. Stein describes the suffering due to the lack of being grounded in the center of one’s being as: There’s an absorption into the peripheral experiences if the depth of your soul hasn’t yet awakened. Emotional disturbance as well, which ‘properly’ lay claim to being experiences in the depths, then play themselves out on the periphery, and that doesn’t become noticeable to the individual as a deficiency as long as the individual knows nothing at all of his own depths. There’s an escaping from the depths to the periphery at the point when a person’s soul life turns into the torment for her, when the soul is filled with distress.”356

Stein describes this suffering as the inability of a person to be grounded in their self. At other places in her work, Stein is careful to never rule-out the possibility of the emergence of personhood despite the extent to which a person may live without engaging

355 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 236. 356 Ibid., 234.

Lovestone 112

their core. In other words, even if to some extent a person’s life may be entirely guided by the values of others, even if they live only at the sentient-thinking level (such as the case of drug addiction), this does not mean the person becomes detached from their core, nor that the core of the person becomes lost: The individual’s life becomes driven by sensory powers and perhaps by volition or even carried along by the powers of someone else’s soul. The individual’s living isn’t coming out of the center of his or her own being, and therefore it is lacking the originality and authenticity of ‘core-valent’ living. We can think to ourselves of individuals who are altogether missing their own center of their being, and together with it a genuine personality and (qualitative) individuality. With the human being, in all instances of ‘soul-less’ behavior you’ll be permitted only to say that he didn’t find or temporarily lost ‘himself,’ for as long as his individuality is unrecognizable (insofar as the limit case of an ‘absolutely’ soul-less behavior can be conceived as realized at all and it isn’t merely a question of more or less). In principle he has such a center, which can burst forth at any time.357

Thus, the person always remains a possibility even if the majority of their life is lived without ever having engaged the core of who they are at their depths. Moreover, even if a person has unfolded to some extent, there is also the possibility that the affective engagement with others can result in making further unfolding impossible.

The Possibility of Thwarted Unfolding Another developmental possibility is that as an individual engages with others out of who they are at their depths they may have destructive experiences—where those that they encounter make it impossible for them to unfold as they have it in them to be. Unfolding is predicated on communal experiences where individuals are open to one another. In other words, the process of unfolding is the decisions an individual makes to be willing to risk themselves with others. The hope is that this interaction will be nurturing, but there is always the possibility that in the vulnerability of opening to another as a person that interaction will be destructive. 358 This happens when a person is

357 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 235. 358 Donald L. Wallenfang, “The Heart of the Matter: Edith Stein on the Substance of the Soul,” Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture 17, no. 3 (Summer 2014): 64.

Lovestone 113

not perceived as valuable. This is because ways of valuing that are rooted in the core inform interpersonal affective attitudes, which have a direct influence on the core: But besides such acts, there are attitudes of the person that matter directly to another person in her individual quality and affect her to the core: love, trust, gratitude, and so forth, and even that which we call ‘faith’ in a human being. On the other side stand distrust, aversion, hatred—in short, the whole set of ‘rejecting’ manners of behavior.359

The core responds to devaluing interpersonal interactions by a reversal of unfolding—that is, by enclosing upon itself and closing off from open engagement. That person’s irreplaceable viewpoint of the world as it is grounded on their core becomes inaccessible to others. There is not only a retreat of the core but also a collapsing inward of the structuring of the soul: “If its inner powers are crushed by the world to which it opens itself, your soul doesn’t ‘grow them back’ like a sentient capability from which the needed powers are taken away; rather, your soul withdraws back into itself, as it were, and becomes inert and therefore invisible.”360 Thus, instead of the opening to the world, the soul becomes a prison of the core. A barrier is enacted that ultimately preserves the person against true destruction, but preservation comes at the cost of that person becoming rigid or inaccessible to others, thus making unfolding impossible: “This switching off of your soul is an arbitrary one. Its counterpart is a pervasive rigidity of your soul against all endeavors, a running dry of its life. The ego descends into its depths, it holes up there. Yet the ego meets up with a gaping void in there.”361 In other words, when a person is met with rejection this inhibits their ability to unfold out of their fundamental core that is an irreplaceable point of orientation to reality and they are no longer able to live life out of who they are at their depths. Likewise, from the standpoint of the community there is the possibility of the inhibition of the core of community as a result of the affective attitude of an outsider. Stein clarifies that what makes a community possible is solidarity among the individuals,

359 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 211. 360 Ibid., 236. 361 Ibid., 234.

Lovestone 114

a ‘living with.’ But that unifying ‘living-with’ that is the basis of community can be damaged by an ‘objective’ observer: First of all it must be said that the solidarity of individuals, which becomes visible in the influence of the attitudes of one upon the life of others, is formative of community in the highest degree. To put it more precisely: Where the individuals are ‘open’ to one another, where the attitudes of one don’t bounce off of the other but rather penetrate him and deploy their efficacy, there a communal life subsists, there the two are members of one whole; and without such a reciprocal relationship community isn’t possible. If we imagine a behavior in which the one individual takes the other purely as an object whose ‘ways of reacting’ he must take precautions against, then the unity of life that makes up community is sliced apart.”362

In other words, if an individual confronts a community as an observer and is unwilling to be open and vulnerable towards the persons of that community and is closed off the objective observer, at the same time, forecloses the possibilities of community in a way that is damaging. If an observer treats those in the community they meet purely as objects of research, then this attitude not only disturbs but destroys the community the observer seeks to study. What this suggests, then, is that what is actually ‘protected’ in the mode of objective observation is actually the observer: “…if my observational orientation in the face of contagion protects me from the atmosphere that all the others are caught up into, and nothing can penetrate me, then between them and me there lies the invisible but insurmountable borderline that separates subject and object.”363 Using other people as a means to an end, perhaps even using the vulnerability and open affection of individuals the observer meets with in a mode of calculation, makes the mutuality that preserves community an impossibility, and community as such would cease.364 What Stein presents here about the effect of the objective attitude is contrary to the way that science privileges the objective standpoint as the best means of perceiving an object of study. The objective standpoint is so valuable because it supposedly

362 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 214. 363 Ibid., 214. 364 Baseheart, Person in the World, 60.

Lovestone 115

preserves what is observed against the disturbance or effect of the observer. While this may possibly be true of non-human subjects, what Stein argues is that the objective attitude causes damage when it is used as an approach to human subjects. Community is not ever an impersonal social entity. Thus, the knower needs to enter the life of the community. At the same time, this signifies the loss of the supposedly impermeable boundaries of the individual observer. Yet, in turn, what is gained is more than a simple acknowledgement or noticing of others in the mode of knowledge possession. Rather, the observer’s experiences admit of a social reality and the person of the scholar conditions the possibility of grasping relational realities in a fullness that cannot be accomplished only on the grounds of objective or distanced description of the social elements that constitute society and politics.365 While community may be damaged by objectification, Stein qualifies that those who suffer an objectifying or rejecting affect are not necessarily harmed but can resist such damage. Stein asserts that an individual is never totally powerless towards others’ affectivities and the corresponding value claims made on their person. It is the capacity of the individual to choose their environment and the communities of which they are a part to which Stein assigns personal freedom: Nevertheless the individual person isn’t surrendered to external impacts in a totally powerless way, but rather has the freedom, within certain limits, either to consent to their influence upon her development or to withdraw herself from it. First of all, she already has the possibility, to a certain degree, to choose her personal surroundings themselves and thus to determine the quality of her environment as well. Furthermore, she has the freedom to nip in the bud any stirrings of the soul that are induced within her.366

A person can choose to leave a community that does not make the most of their core capacities. As well, a person can resist objectification. However, Stein qualifies this by saying that resisting objectification depends on that the person is grounded as such to

365 Hanna-Barbara Gerl-Falkovitz, “Edith Stein’s Little-Known Side: Social Philosophy out of the Spirit of Phenomenology,” American Catholic Philosophcial Quarterly 83, no. 4 (2009): 572; Antonio Calcagno, Lived Experience from the Inside Out: Social and Political Philosophy in Edith Stein (Pittsburgh: Duquesne, 2014), 21. 366 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 268.

Lovestone 116

some extent. In other words, the capacity for restricting the influence of others on one’s core is determined according to the extent of how much their core as unfolded. In other words, to the extent that a person is grounded at their core can they be self-determining: The ‘responsibility’ of the person can’t be suspended by appeal to either environmental influences or natural predispositions. To the extent that the person has freedom in the determination of her development, the freedom of others to influence that development is curtailed.…It hardly needs to be stressed that this possibility doesn’t exist for just any sentient individual, but only or the person in the full sense of the word.367 Thus, for Stein, whether an individual’s character is artificial or they develop genuine qualities rooted in their person develops more and more as a matter of personal choice, a fundament freedom up to a point—what place to live, what influences are accepted and rejected, what habitual tendencies are fostered or curbed.368 But the possibility of resilience of external influences requires the actualization of personhood to some degree in the first place. You can withdraw from the influence of the personal distinctiveness of another, too. You can open your heart in defiance of any automatic self- closure, or you can still stay alert, anyway (which means, lead an inner life for yourself without participating in the surroundings). And you can set yourself against the suggestive invasion of someone else’s kin of being by deliberately holding fast to your own.369

Up until now awakening and the achievement of person has been described in terms of a sort of achievement or ending point. However, the full unfolding of a person occurs over a lifetime and can be enacted, thwarted, or developed more depending on circumstances and the kinds of choices someone has available to them. When person emerges there is thus a grounding in the soul-core that serves as the basis by which a person has the capacity to make choices of resistance and acceptance in response to interpersonal interactions. As a result of unfolding, a person has the capacity to curtail social influences on their person and have a basis of judgment by which to assert self- determination and actualization of who they are at their core to inform all aspects of their lives. As well, as a result of unfolding a person can ground what they know in who they

367 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 268-269. 368 MacIntyre, Edith Stein, 128. 369 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 269.

Lovestone 117

are. We now turn to an exploration of what the possibility of unfolding looks like in lived experience.

The Possibility of Unfolding Unfolding happens to the extent that a person is met with the affirmative and open responses of other people, where their value is affirmed.370 The process of an individual person unfolding from their core is lifelong and its possibility depends on the extent of openness of others that an individual comes in contact with. For many, one of the most significant relationships of the openness from another person that awakens deep parts of their core is with children. Infants and children are exemplars in terms of their radical vulnerability, their absolute dependence on others. The very nature of an infant is a state of ceaseless openness.371 This radical openness can have significant effects on adults. This is a familiar cultural trope depicted in literature in film that is corroborated in my own experiences with friends and family who have become parents and what I have taken away from how they share the meaning of these experiences. The experiential moments of motherhood and fatherhood, especially at the beginning, are for many people the emergence of deep parts of their personhood that are wonderfully surprising. It is often the case that the parts of their person that manifest in that relationship are experienced as surprising, that up until meeting their children they did not know those structures of their person were even within them, as it was present only at their depths, at their core. Stein describes awakening as: “On the other hand there’s the possibility that contact with another awakens something in me that until now has been slumbering in me, and brings entirely new traits out of my personality into bloom.”372 This is perhaps why many regard becoming a parent as the most valuable of their relational moments of their entire lives because there is the sense in which a deep part of their person has unfolded for the first time that grounds them in who they truly are at their depths. Additionally, those who are confronted by the radical openness of their

370 Wallenfang, “The Heart of the Matter,” 64. 371 Ibid., 64. 372 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 268.

Lovestone 118

children experience the possibility of themselves opening in a way that is just as radically vulnerable towards the child in a way that is overwhelming. This is because the unfolding of person is realized in and through the “letting of another’s being come over oneself.”373 This confrontation with a child in my own life has resulted in the emergence of new fundamental aspects of my person that I did not know existed beforehand and were wonderfully surprising to me. I could have never foreseen the me that emerged from my core when my nephew Giovanni came into my life. My experiential capacities are changed—how I take in the world is different, enlarged somehow. This is what Stein is getting at when she indicates that the core structures the capacities of the soul. What is available of the core determines how and the extent to which we can take in the world. For example, how I am happy and laugh and how much happiness and laughter I can take is significantly greater since Gio—seemingly boundless. How I engage in relationships is different as well in terms of how much I am aware of other people. How I engage with others is more present and open, and I can take in more of those experiences. I experience the world and others more fully than I did before he became a part of my family. My relationship Giovanni taught me key aspects of Stein’s phenomenology that I otherwise would not have been able to recognize. Stein explains that a person who is awakened at their core in moments of radical openness with others may find new values emerge out of their depths that amend or displace the values assumingly taken over from their society and culture. This is true of my own experience. The perception of the body in western culture, particularly women’s bodies, largely socializes the control of bodily functions by valuing women’s bodies as shameful. I do not have to offer citations of countless scholarly works to assert that there are social taboos throughout history and today regarding women’s menstruation. This socialization by shame is well-known and pervasive in western culture. Likewise, natural digestive processes, such as farting, are highly criticized, more so for women than for men. Farting is contrary to the valued ideal of western womanhood. The shame-based social valuation of the female body has been deeply inculcated in my person in complex ways that cannot be fully traced or grasped. But it was for the first time in my

373 Wallenfang, “The Heart of the Matter,” 67.

Lovestone 119

relationship with Gio that my own values became available to me that I could rely on to challenge the values of my wider western milieu. In my relationship with Gio and the aspects of my person that unfolded because of the openness between us gave me the capacity to value my body differently than the precepts of my culture: I value my body as healthy and not as shameful. My body that functions as it should with healthy digestive processes, such as farting, is not to be rejected as shameful. Indeed, farting is valued so radically different in the community of Gio and I: farting is fun and funny. Farting is not socially reprehensible or shameful. In moments with a wonderfully goofy little boy, I realized the social valuations of my body as shameful is actually not rooted in my own personal values: at my core, I do not perceive bodies as sources of shame, both for men and women. Moreover, this new valuation basis of my own body rooted at my core can serve as a point of departure to generalize and challenge the values prescribed by my larger society. I have a foundation by which to assert that all bodies, especially women’s bodies, are not shameful. In other words, I now have the grounds in my unfolded person by which I can reject the claims made on my own female body and resist the ways in which my culture attempts to shape my attitude towards my body. Stein ultimately turns to another concept to describe the moments of radical openness between persons, where persons see each other as who they are with no sense of objectification: love. For Stein, love is the highest valuation of others because love is what allows the recognition of others as persons and nothing else:374 “Now, in the act of love we have a comprehending or an intending of the value of a person.”375 The consequences of love for Stein is that loving attachments are restorative of what was previously inhibited or destroyed by rejecting attitudes. As well, the encounter with love is transformative of lifepower. Again, Giovanni gives me insight into what Stein wants to convey. As a result of the demands made on me with my university work and other factors, I come to points of stress and absolute emotional exhaustion. Yet after a long day on campus in front of a computer I get to come home where I live with my nephew and sister. When I walk through the door my

374 Calcagno, Lived Experience, 101. 375 Stein, Empathy, 102.

Lovestone 120

nephew cries out in excitement: “T.T.!” (which is his own particular name for me). He proceeds to grab my hand and show me what he is playing with or new discoveries of the day. In our interactions, instantly my exhaustion is reversed in the face of his excitement that I am home and I am his “T.T.” Stein calls attention to these kinds of possibilities for lifepower in how we engage with one another and the corresponding consequences for our experience: Something similar may be possible in the communications of one person with another. The love with which I embrace a human being may be sufficient to fill him with new lifepower if his own breaks down. Indeed, the mere contact with human beings of more intense aliveness may exert an enlivening effect upon those who are jaded or exhausted, who have no activeness as a presupposition on their side.376

In the most unexpected way, how my nephew greets me and our moments of play are invigorating. With him all of a sudden I have the inner resources to write pages of a thesis and to tackle the stack of books on my desk for other research projects that are due soon. All of a sudden, I have capacities of understanding and for work and achievement that may not have been possible otherwise. As Stein would say: “The love which I meet with strengthens and invigorates me and grants me the power of unexpected achievements.”377 One of the greatest achievements of love is the full actualization of person. Interestingly, then, love is the limit of empathy. That is, the interpersonal act that gives the most insight to person with their particular core-valent valuations is not empathy, but love:378

The apprehending of a value and the attitude appropriate to it mutually require one another, and while the required attitude is not being experienced, the value isn’t being apprehended completely vividly. So in a way it’s correct to say that love is based upon the apprehended value of the beloved person, but on the other hand, the worth of a person is fully and completely accessible only to the lover.379

376 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 85. 377 Ibid., 212. 378 Calcagno, Lived Experience, 101. 379 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 213.

Lovestone 121

Stein argues that the possibilities of person ultimately depend on love. As a result of the awakening of the depths of person, what resides in their core, this results in the change of every aspect of an individual’s personality.380 How a person behaves towards others, the way that they express themselves in the various social roles that they occupy is then marked by their own personal individuality to the extent that they have been loved, have been valued as who they are as a unique entity. To the extent that someone has been loved, their achievements become an expression of an irreducible and unique person. Therein an individual’s life becomes their very own in the fullest sense. In that the personality experiences values and creates achievements, ‘she emerges out of herself’—just as with apprehending the sensory outer world or theoretical coherences. But while the function of understanding does not issue from the interior, from the depths of the ego, those depths do awaken in affective and dispositional life. Then your soul opens itself, with that which is proper to it when it’s at home with itself: the world of value. The affective life and the character are entirely saturated by the ‘latent’ qualities of the soul.”381

Thus we see here the extent to which the foundational act of full achievement of understanding in the humanities in its highest sense is achieved not by intellect or sensation but by persons that have emerged in the fullness of who they are as a result of affirming, valuating relationships. The highest possibilities for achievements in the humanities are at the same time dependant on the possibilities of love. My experiential examples from my relationship with my nephew are concrete examples of what, for Stein, constitutes the foundation of the sciences. In my relationship with my nephew new parts of my core have been awakened and have unfolded. What has become available of my core has reached into the matrix of my intellect-sensate life (Leib); the way I think and sense the world is changed (I previously articulated this as the “world is different, enlarged somehow”). There has been a change in my values when, as new values became available from my core, I realized certain values that were taken in from the world are not actually grounded in the depths of who I am. New core-rooted values have become available to me and thereafter inform the judgments I make in my

380 MacIntyre, Edith Stein, 125. 381 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 227-228.

Lovestone 122

research and writing as well as how I participate in intellectual communities. Now there are values that I bring to knowledge about women in my scholarship that are rooted in the core of my person. Moreover, as people have valued me in affirming relationships I have become more and more the person that I have in me to be. As I have been loved, the parts of me that had been previously inhibited or destroyed by rejecting attitudes have unfolded again. As I have been loved, I have been empowered to make unexpected achievements. As I have been loved, I have been able to ground the work that I do in the core, in the depths of who I am. As I have been loved, my own originary and non-displaceable zero point of orientation to the world (Nullpunkt) informs work that is grounded on a unique and irreplaceable unfolded person as one of a multiplicity of centers on the world.

This chapter has made clear that, for Stein, how we treat one another has consequences for the person that we can become and, likewise, the knowledge that we can create. What prevents our ability to know is not differentness or the separation of historical time. What prevents our ability to know is unwillingness to be open and the inability to value subjects and engage them with affirming attitudes. Additionally, our knowledge is not well-grounded when we do not become the person that it is in us to be.382 Stein also helps us to see that a full understanding of people is not an objective endeavor. People as such are not mere objects of consciousness. Through empathy and the achievement of fuller perception in love we recognize that knowledge in the humanities does not have the polarizing structure of subject verses object, insider verses outsider, but knowing is much more complex than what is captured by binary structures. The empirical realities that comprise knowledge are always mixed and mutually reinforcing: “The empirical realities—individual as well as super-individual—are mixed realities: mental life, fed from the source of a psyche, incarnated in physical occurrence, and in that way bound to a physical body.”383

382 Sawicki, Body, Text, and Science, 140. 383 Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, 296.

Lovestone 123

Stein’s phenomenology of person and community provides an alternative sociological framework for the humanities, where we can attend to how values that underwrite knowledge are grounded on the concrete realities of scholars’ personhood and capacity for experiences. Stein also provides a way to attend to the role of affectivity and how it influences the social realities they encounter. As well, there is the tacit demotion of the objective stance as the scientific standard of social study. Instead, Stein calls for social scientists to exhibit radical openness and connection with the groups they encounter if they wish to not damage community as such. For Stein, encountering persons in empathy and in love is what achieves understanding—that is, an approach to understanding people according to Stein is to know with integrity by not plagiarizing or commodifying others’ experiences as one’s own and to approach each person as valuable:

I consider every subject whom I empathetically comprehend as experiencing a value as a person whose experiences interlock themselves into an intelligible, meaningful whole. How much of his experiential structure I can bring to my fulfilling intuition depends on my own structure.384

Empathy and love are the perceptual actions that guarantee the irreducibility of what is known as it is grounded in the unfolded person.385 This is the conclusion that Stein reached as a result of her phenomenological investigation: that the ultimate foundation of scientific knowledge is the unfolded person.

384 Stein, Empathy, 115. 385 Calcagno, Lived Experience, 78.

Lovestone 124

Conclusion

This thesis has shown how Edith Stein accomplished the goal of phenomenology to provide a unified foundation for the sciences. With her first two published works, Stein found that the ultimate basis of all knowledge in the sciences and the humanities is the unfolded person. Stein’s significance goes beyond phenomenology. On the one hand, her work is a culmination of both hermeneutics and empirical psychology. As a hermeneutic, Stein’s phenomenology offers scientific strategies of investigation and methods of interpretation for the human sciences. For psychology, Stein offers a new scientific concept that was a compliment to causality: lifepower. Stein’s phenomenology offers the tools for psychological understanding of the human subject as an interplay of internal and external factors in a way that is non-reductive of the subject’s ontology. Thus, Stein made it possible for psychology to be an ‘exact science,’ and thereby completed the task of empirical psychology that was set forth by Franz Brentano. On the other hand, Stein’s contributions are significant in how her phenomenology addressed the crisis in science and society in the first decades of the twentieth century. As a result of the Hume-Kant shift, science was threatened by an idealism that not only questioned the claims on reality that science could make, but scientific specializations left behind philosophy that could no longer unify science. To simultaneously save science and philosophy, Edmund Husserl created phenomenology to provide a solid foundation and unify the sciences. To do so, Husserl devised a method, first iterated as the reduction that he developed into the epoché. This led Husserl to assert the unified foundation of the sciences is the disembodied and de-particularized transcendental i. However, a group of realist, or ‘worldly,’ phenomenologists that included Stein rejected the epoché, and simultaneously continued the search for a unified foundation against the ‘new’ transcendental Husserl. Contra Husserl, Stein asserted a foundation of science that as a multiplicity of grounded viewpoints on the world, that empirical content is grounded in the particular person embodied at a non-displaceable and originary zero-point of orientation to the world. Through her phenomenological investigation of empathy, she argues that the

Lovestone 125

contents of other’s viewpoints can be accessed but plagiarized as one’s own. Instead, the contents of other viewpoints retain their citations from their sources. Even though Stein’s accomplishments went beyond Husserl and her colleagues, the violent racial and sexist oppressions of her time and ours has resulted in the lack of recognition of her work. As Stein scholar Antonio Calcagno asserts “If phenomenology today were to take seriously Stein’s contribution, the shape of its scholarly face would certainly be different.”386 Likewise, it is my sense that if different disciplines in the humanities took Stein seriously it would mean a big shift in our shared values. Stein achieved an understanding of how human beings are structured and asserts different developmental possibilities according to different kinds of relationships. For Stein, human beings are not enclosed individuals that can be accounted for in terms of inner adaptation to environmental factors. Rather, energy exchanges from the whole constellation of factors—physical objects, feelings, emotions, thinking and sensing—do not “stop at the skin,” to use Marianne Sawicki’s phrase.387 That is, persons connect with one another in terms of values and affectivity in ways that bring about different developments of the fundamental aspects of who we are. In other words, the reciprocity of how we perceive and how we are perceived plays the role in awakening the core. When the core is awakened in the affirming affects of others and can inform the structuration of a person, it is thereafter a grounded and irreducibly unique zero-point of orientation (Nullpunkt) is available. It is then that the values that inform the what and the how of perception are not the feeling-values taken over from other people and assumed as valid but grounded on the feeling-values that extend from that person’s very core. In short, secure and valid knowledge in the humanities is possible to the extent that we as scholars have affirming relationships in our lives and create communities that make full use of what each person has in them to be.

386 Antonio Calcagno, The Philosophy of Edith Stein (Pittsburg: Duquesne University Press, 2007), 18. 387 Sawicki, introduction to Edith Stein, Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities, trans. M.C. Baseheart and M. Sawicki (Washington, DC: ICS Publications, 2000), xix.

Lovestone 126

Steinian Phenomenology as an Approach to the Study of Religion & Trauma Antonio Calcagno has referred to Stein’s phenomenology as a “philosophical anthropology.”388 Moving forward, I will take up the task of translating Stein’s phenomenology into an approach to the study of religion and trauma that I refer to as “the empathetic gaze.” The concept of “gaze” offers a way to think about the power in perception and the effect of the perceiver on the perceived. Particularly for ethnography, Stein offers a way of attending to the effect of the scholar in the ethnographic, or interpersonal, encounter in a way that is attentive to the dynamics of power difference and affective life. I see in Stein a resource to think critically about the valuations scholarship makes not only in text but also in interpersonal engagement. In the further pursuit of my work with Stein, interpersonal engagement must take up the effects of our person in perception of people in a way that is more insightful about our ethics in terms of our willingness to be open to the realities that people tell us about. This necessitates different ways of thinking about our boundaries, our limitations, our vulnerabilities, and what of our own person may be unfolded. Edith Stein helps us to come up with another variation of ethnography. Steinian phenomenology is particularly conducive to a critical engagement of ethnography for the subject of trauma. Not only is trauma a complex area of study in psychology and the humanities, but the power dynamics that are at play for the vulnerabilities of the people who have traumatized experiences are extremely complex. Theories that do not take account of the effect of our interpersonal affectivity are inappropriate for the study of trauma. Stein allows us to not only think about what it means to perceive and the power assumptions at play, but provides for an approach that is mutual and empathic and profoundly moral in its implications. An ethnography based on Stein is attentive to how the subject is treated and has more integrity for what we do with the data of people’s experiences. As well, there are not many who allow traumatized persons to be heard within the wider scholarly discourse. What is promising about Steinian phenomenology is that it expands our possibilities of what we can know by teaching, as Gubser phrases it, “an

388 Calcagno, The Philosophy of Edith Stein, 18.

Lovestone 127

openness of original human encounters.”389 That is, to achieve an approach that is affirming and will not inherently inhibit their ability to unfold out of their fundamental core that is an irreplaceable center on the world. It is important to engage and value the voices of peoples that are typically marginalized not only in scholarship but in society and science. As a way of ending this thesis, I would like to extend the quotation that prefaced my introduction. The poet Rainer Maria Rilke is often considered the culmination of German poetry. He was also writing during the context of crisis that conditioned Stein’s world. Rilke has been a long-time favorite of mine, and I met him before I met Stein. As I worked on my thesis and unfolding became the predominant concept of my analysis, the lines from one of Rilke’s poems that are cited before the introduction came to mind. While I lack the analytical tools from literary studies to articulate exactly what parallels I see in this poem and Stein’s phenomenology, all I can say is that there is something here in Rilke’s words that capture the dynamics of what it was about true openness of being that both Stein and Rilke longed for when the world around them was racked with raging violence and trauma. I copy the poem on the next page so that perhaps readers may also see this striking connection, and perhaps other insights besides.

“Ich bin auf der Welt zu allein und doch nicht allein genug” by R.M. Rilke

I’m too alone in the world, yet not alone enough to make each hour holy. I’m too small in the world, yet not small enough to be simply in your presence, like a thing— just as it is.

389 Michael Gubser, The Far Reaches: Phenomenology, Ethics, and Social Renewal in Central Europe (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2014), 12.

Lovestone 128

I want to know my own will and to move with it. And I want, in the hushed moments when the nameless draws near, to be among the wise ones— or alone.

I want to mirror your immensity. I want never to be too weak or too old to bear the heavy, lurching image of you.

I want to unfold. Let no place in me hold itself closed, for where I am closed, I am false. I want to stay clear in your sight.

I would describe myself like a landscape I’ve studied at length, in detail; like a word I’m coming to understand; like a pitcher I pour from at mealtime; like my mother’s face; like a ship that carried me when the waters raged.390

390 Rainer Maria Rilke, Rilke’s Book of Hours: Love Poems to God, translated by Anita Barrows and Joanna Macy (New York: Riverhead Books, 2005), 59-60.

Lovestone 129

Bibliography

Agar, Jon. Science in the Twentieth Century and Beyond. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2012.

Ales Bello, Angela. “The Study of Soul between Psychology and Phenomenology at Edith Stein.” Cultura: International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology 8 (2007): 90-108.

Astell, Ann W. “From Ugly Duckling to Swan: Education as Spiritual Transformation in the Thought of Edith Stein.” Spiritus: A Journal of Christian Spirituality 13, no. 1 (Spring 2013): 1-16.

Baseheart, Mary Catherine. “Edith Stein (1891-1942).” The History of Women Philosophers. Editors Gilles Mènage and Beatrice H. Zedler (Lanham: University Press of America, 1984): 157-187.

_____. Person in the World: Introduction to the Philosophy of Edith Stein. Dordrecht: Springer, 2010.

Bell, David. Husserl. New York: Routledge, 1990.

Bokhove, Niels W. and Karl Schuhmann. “Bibliographie der Schriften von Theodor Lipps.” Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 45, no. 1 (Jan.-Mar. 1991): 112- 130.

Botts, Tina. “Legal Hermeneutics.” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed April 23, 2017. http://www.iep.utm.edu/leg-herm/#H1.

Calcagno, Antonio. The Philosophy of Edith Stein. Pittsburg: Duquesne University Press, 2007.

_____. Lived Experience from the Inside Out: Social and Political Philosophy in Edith Stein. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 2014.

Crane, Tim, and Jonathan Wolff, eds. “Introduction.” Franz Brentano, Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint (1874). Translated by Antos C. Rancurello, D.B. Terrell, and Linda L. McAlister. New York: Routledge, 2009.

Davis, Zachary and Anthony Steinbock. “Max Scheler.” The Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Edward N. Zalta (Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab at Stanford University, Fall 2016). Accessed March 16, 2017. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/scheler/.

Lovestone 130

DeRobertis, Eugene M. "William Stern: Forerunner of Human Science Child Developmental Thought." Journal Of Phenomenological Psychology 42, no. 2 (September 2011): 157-173.

Forster, Michael. “Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. Edward n. Zalta (Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab at Stanford University, Summer 2015). Accessed March 11, 2017. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/schleiermacher/.

Gerl-Falkovitz, Hanna-Barbara. “Edith Stein’s Little-Known Side: Social Philosophy out of the Spirit of Phenomenology.” American Catholic Philosophcial Quarterly 83, no. 4 (2009): 555-581.

Gubser, Michael. The Far Reaches: Phenomenology, Ethics, and Social Renewal in Central Europe. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2014.

Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. Cambridge: Blackwell, 1962. Originally published as Sein und Zeit. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1927.

Huemer, Wolfgang. “Franz Brentano,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta (Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab at Stanford University, Fall 2016). Accessed March 11, 2017. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/brentano/.

Hughes, John. “Edith Stein’s Doctoral Thesis on Empathy and the Philosophical Climate from Which It Emerged.” Teresanium 36 (1985): 455-484.

Husserl, Edmund. “Philosophy as Rigorous Science.” 1910. Translated in Phenomenology and the Crisis of Philosophy, ed. Q. Lauer (New York: Harper, 1965): 71-148.

_____. Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy: First Book General Introduction to a Pure Phenomenology. Translated by F. Kersten. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1982. First published as Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologischen Philosophie. Erstes Buch: Allgemeine Einführung in die reine Phänomenologie in Jarbuch für Philosophy nd phänomenologische Forschung 1 (1913) 1-323.

_____. Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy: Second Book Studies in the Phenomenology of Constitution. Translated by Richard Rojcewicz and André Schuwer. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989.

Lovestone 131

Edmund Husserl. Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to Phenomenology. Translated by Dorion Cairns. 7th edition. Boston: The Hague, 1982. First published as Méditations cartésiennes: Introduction à la phénoménologie. Translated by Gabrielle Peiffer and Emmanuel Levinas. Paris: Armand Collin, 1931.

_____. The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology. Trans. with introduction by David Carr. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1970. The 1936 unfinished manuscript originally published as Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die transzendentale Phänomenologie: Eine Einleitung in die phánomenologische Philosophie. Edited by Walter Biemel. Leiden: Nijhoff, 1954.

Jackson,Michael. Minima Ethnographica: Intersubjectivity and the Anthropological Project. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.

Kant, Immanuel. The Critique of Pure Reason. Unabridged Edition. Translated by Norman Kemp Smith. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1929. Originally published as Critik der reinen Vernunft. 2nd edition. Riga: J.F. Hartknoch, 1787.

Kazimierz Wilk, Rafał. “On Human Being: A Dispute between Edith Stein and Martin Heidegger.” Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture 10, no. 4 (Fall 2007): 104-119.

Koselleck, Reinhart and Michaela W. Richter. “Crisis.” Journal of the History of Ideas 67, no. 2 (April 2006): 357-400.

Lipps, Theodor. “Das Wissen von fremden Ichen,” Psychologische Untersuchungen 1 (1907): 694-722.

_____. “Empathy, Inner Imitation, and Sense-Feelings.” A Modern Book of Esthetics: An Anthology. 5th Edition. Translated by Max Schertel and Melvin Rader (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1979): 371-378.

Makkreel, Rudolf. “Wilhelm Dilthey,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. Edward N. Zalta. (Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab at Stanford University, Fall 2016). Accessed March 11, 2017. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/dilthey/.

MacIntyre, Alasdair. Edith Stein: A Philosophical Prologue 1913-1922. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006.

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. Phenomenology of Perception. Translated by Colin Smith. New York: Routledge, 2002. Originally published as Phénomènologie de la Perception. Paris: Gallimard, 1945.

Lovestone 132

Moran, Dermot. “The Problem of Empathy: Lipps, Scheler, Husserl and Stein.” Amor Amicitiae: On the Love that is Friendship. Essays in Medieval Thought and Beyond in Honor of the Rev. Professor James McEvoy. Eds. Thomas A. Kelly and Phillip W. Rosemann (Dudley: Peeters, 2004): 269-312.

Orr, James. “Being and Timelessness: Edith Stein’s Critique of Heideggerian Temporality.” Modern Theology, 30:1 (January 2014): 114-131.

Rilke, Rainer Maria. ““Ich bin auf der Welt zu allein und doch nicht allein genug.” Rilke’s Book of Hours: Love Poems to God. Translated by Anita Barrows and Joanna Macy (New York: Riverhead Books, 2005): 59-60.

Robinson, Daniel N. How is Nature Possible? Kant’s Project in the First Critique. New York: Continuum, 2012.

Scheler, Max. The Nature of Sympathy. Translated by Peter Health. London: Routledge, 1954.

Sarton, George. “L’Histoire de la Science.” Isis 1, no. 1 (1913): 3-46

Sawicki, Marianne. Body, Text, and Science: The Literacy of Investigative Practices and the Phenomenology of Edith Stein. Boston: Kluwer, 1997.

_____. “Personal Connections: The Phenomenology of Edith Stein.” Yearbook of the Irish Philosophical Society. Maynooth: Irish Philosophcial Society (2004): 148-169.

Scarry, Elaine. The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.

Scheler, Max. The Nature of Sympathy. Translated by Peter Health. London: Routledge, 1954.

Sokolowski, Robert. Introduction to Phenomenology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Spiegelberg, Herbert., and Karl Schuhmann. The Phenomenological Movement: A Historical Introduction. 3rd Revised and Enlarged Edition. Boston: M. Nijhoff, 1982.

Stein, Edith. On the Problem of Empathy. 3rd Edition. Translated by W. Stein. Washington, DC: ICS Publications, 1988. Originally Published as Zum Problem der Einfühlung. München: Gerdard Kaffke, 1917.

Lovestone 133

Edith Stein. Philosophy of Psychology and the Humanities. Translated by M.C. Baseheart and M. Sawicki. Washington, DC: ICS Publications, 2000. Originally published as Beiträge zur philosophischen Begründung der Psychologie und phänomenologische Forschung. Vol. 5. Ed. Edmund Husserl. Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1922.

_____. Life in a Jewish Family: Her Unfinished Autobiographical Account. Translated by Josephine Koeppel. Washington DC: ICS Publications, 1986.

Stueber, Karsten. “Empathy.” The Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Edward N. Zalta. (Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab at Stanford University, Spring 2017): Accessed March 20, 2017. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/empathy/.

Toadvine, Ted. “Maurice Merleau-Ponty.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta, ed. (Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab at Stanford University, winter 2016): Accessed April 3, 2017. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/merleau-ponty/.

Wallenfang, Donald L. “The Heart of the Matter: Edith Stein on the Substance of the Soul.” Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture 17, no. 3 (Summer 2014): 118-142.

Wheeler, Michael. “Martin Heidegger.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edited by N. Zalta. Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab at Stanford University (Winter 2016). Accessed April 5, 2017. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/heidegger/.

Wilk, Rafał Kazimierz. “On Human Being: A Dispute between Edith Stein and Martin Heidegger.” Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture 10, no. 4 (Fall 2007): 104-119.

Zahavi, Dan. “Empathy, Embodiment and Interpersonal Understanding: From Lipps to Schutz.” Inquiry 53, no. 3 (14 May 2010): 287-306.